The NIH National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine would be expected to have an unbiased and open mind about the use of colloidal silver. Their recent statement is posted at http://nccam.nih.gov/health/alerts/silver/index.htm#c

Some key excerpts:

Do colloidal silver products work?

Reviews in the scientific literature on colloidal silver products have concluded that:

Silver has no known function in the body.

Silver is not an essential mineral supplement or a cure-all and should not be promoted as such.

Claims that there can be a "deficiency" of silver in the body and that such a deficiency can lead to disease are unfounded.

Claims made about the effectiveness of colloidal silver products for numerous diseases are unsupported scientifically.

Colloidal silver products can have serious side effects (discussed further below).

Laboratory analysis has shown that the amounts of silver in supplements vary greatly, which can pose risks to the consumer.

and

What are the risks of using these products?

Animal studies have shown that silver builds up in the tissues of the body. In humans, buildup of silver from colloidal silver can lead to a side effect called argyria. It causes a bluish-gray discoloration of the skin, other organs, deep tissues, nails, and gums. Argyria cannot be treated or reversed, and it is permanent. While it is not known how argyria occurs, it is thought that silver combines with protein, forming complexes that deposit in the skin and are processed by sunlight (as in traditional photography).6,7 Other side effects from using colloidal silver products may include neurologic problems (such as seizures), kidney damage, stomach distress, headaches, fatigue, and skin irritation. Colloidal silver may interfere with the body's absorption of the following drugs: penacillamine, quinolones, tetracyclines, and thyroxine.

(one edit to fix typo)

sarongsong

2005-Feb-21, 12:36 AM

The NIH National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine would be expected to have an unbiased and open mind about the use of colloidal silver...
So one would expect...until those pesky L.A. Times reports came along.
Feb 12, 2005 (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/792208161.html?did=792208161&amp;FMT=ABS&amp;FMTS=FT&amp;date= Feb+12%2C+2005&amp;author=David+Willman&amp;desc=The+Natio n%3B+NIH+Chief+Calls+for+Ethics+Summit%3B+Dr.+Elia s+Zerhouni%2C+who+banned+drug+company+payments+to+ agency+scientists%2C+wants+a+wider+discussion+on+c onflicts+in+medical+research.)
"Dr. Elias A. Zerhouni last week banned all of his agency's scientists from accepting consulting fees, stock or any other compensation from the biomedical industry. He also instructed the scientists to divest stock holdings in any biomedical company. The reforms, Zerhouni said in an interview, will put the NIH ahead of universities and private physicians in battling conflicts of interest..."
Dec 23, 2004 (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/769979171.html?did=769979171&amp;FMT=ABS&amp;FMTS=FT&amp;date= Dec+23%2C+2004&amp;author=&amp;desc=The+Sick+NIH)
"Consider senior NIH psychiatric researcher Dr. P. Trey Sunderland III, who pocketed $508,050 from Pfizer Inc. at the same time he worked with Pfizer in his government capacity -- and even endorsed one of its drugs. Or blood transfusion expert Dr. Harvey G. Klein, who accepted $240,200 in fees and $76,600 in stock options from companies working on blood-related products..."
Dec 22, 2004 (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/769398761.html?did=769398761&amp;FMT=ABS&amp;FMTS=FT&amp;date= Dec+22%2C+2004&amp;author=David+Willman&amp;desc=The+Natio nal+Institutes+of+Health%3A+Public+Servant+or+Priv ate+Marketer%3F%3B+Doctors+have+long+relied+on+the +NIH+to+set+medical+standards.+But+with+its+resear chers+accepting+fees+and+stock+from+drug+companies %2C+will+that+change%3F+A+continuing+examination+b y+The+Times+shows+an+unabashed+mingling+of+science +and+commerce.)
"...Doctors have long relied on the NIH to set medical standards. But with its researchers accepting fees and stock from drug companies, will that change? A continuing examination by The Times shows an unabashed mingling of science and commerce..."

Some key excerpts:

Do colloidal silver products work?

Reviews in the scientific literature on colloidal silver products have concluded that:
Silver has no known function in the body...
Notice the question was not really answered.
To anyone interested, the link at the bottom of this page:
Colloidal Silver Facts (http://www.silver-colloids.com/Reports/reports.html)

W.F. Tomba

2005-Feb-21, 12:47 AM

Do colloidal silver products work?

Reviews in the scientific literature on colloidal silver products have concluded that:
Silver has no known function in the body...
Notice the question was not really answered.

Claims made about the effectiveness of colloidal silver products for numerous diseases are unsupported scientifically.
Sounds like an answer to me.

Herodotus

2005-Feb-21, 03:08 AM

It causes a bluish-gray discoloration of the skin, other organs, deep tissues, nails, and gums. Argyria cannot be treated or reversed, and it is permanent.

Other than making some people bear a striking resemblance to Papa Smurf and damaging your internal organs, naw, they didn't really say anything bad about it. :o

Sammy

2005-Feb-21, 05:20 AM

RE Sarongsong's link:

We all know that, Sarong. Now, how about something relevant to colloidial silver?

sarongsong

2005-Feb-21, 06:19 AM

RE Sarongsong's link (http://www.silver-colloids.com/Reports/reports.html):
We all know that...
Well, then...Frank pretty much covered the bases at that link, don't-cha think:

...Due to the very low concentration of ionic silver and small particle size, true silver colloids do not cause*argyria, a condition that causes the skin to turn blue-gray...
It's a simple matter to rip electrons from silver atoms, resulting in its ionic form. If nothing else, water/spray indoor plants with it, add it to water-based indoor paints when re-decorating (as an anti-fungal agent), and/or...oops---got'ta go---Denny Crane is on! :D

*

Sammy

2005-Feb-21, 04:20 PM

Your taste in TV is certainly better than your taste in links.

I don't think anyone who posts here (other than you) gives much credence to stuff sites lkike this--essentially an anymous front that is really in the business of promoting/selling the use of colloidal silver. You insinuate (without actually making any statement of your own) that NIH is compromised because of someinstances which have the appearance of conflict of interest, and then present info from a totally uncontrolled, undocumented source.

And, as is your usual tactic, you dance arround the main issue. Turning blue is a peripheral issue--the real issue is the documented (by multiple sources) is that ingesting silver has no purpose, no benefits, and real risks.

Are you going to respond to that issue, post more irrelevant links without any real statement of your position, or just fade away?

sarongsong

2005-Feb-21, 08:46 PM

Your taste in TV is certainly better than your taste in links...
I'm glad we can agree on something---one of TV's fewest real delights these days. :D
Argyria is caused by silver compounds, not colloids.

Sammy

2005-Feb-22, 03:10 AM

Your taste in TV is certainly better than your taste in links...
I'm glad we can agree on something---one of TV's fewest real delights these days. :D
Argyria is caused by silver compounds, not colloids.

That is by no means proven. But, once again, you refuse to deal with the real issue: ingesting colloidal silver has no known benefits, but does have know risks, over and above turing blue.

To paraphrase Joe Louis, you can run, but you can't hide. You can be charming and clever, but sooner or later you have to either peovide real support for your position, or admit that you can't provide any acceptable evidence to support your position that ingesting colloidal silver has benefits outweighing the risks.

Gullible Jones

2005-Feb-22, 03:36 AM

Excuse me, but am I the only one who has serious misgivings about consuming such relatively large quantities of any metal as would be found in colloidal silver? For crying out loud, when nutritionists call something a "trace mineral", they probably mean it!

And yes, I know all about silver ions' effects on bacteria. Well, having silver ions in your stomach won't help much...

Oh yes, and what was that about silver compounds causing argyria, but not colloids? Tell me, Sarongsong... What happens when you expose a metal such as silver to a strong acid like the digestive juices of the human stomach? Yes, that's right... You get a salt, or rather a mishmash of dissolved metal and nonmetal ions, in this case a solution of silver chloride. Somehow, I don't think the human body should have much trouble absorbing that. And remember, colloids' large surface-to-volume ratio, a fair amount of the colloidal silver probably ends up as dissolved ions.

sarongsong

2005-Feb-22, 06:47 AM

...ingesting colloidal silver has no known benefits, but does have known risks, over and above turing blue...
Which are?

sarongsong

2005-Feb-22, 07:04 AM

Excuse me, but am I the only one who has serious misgivings about consuming such relatively large quantities of any metal as would be found in colloidal silver? No.
...when nutritionists call something a "trace mineral"... Please clarify; in the context of existing in the body?
...I know all about silver ions' effects on bacteria...Great---you're half way there!
...What happens when you expose a metal such as silver to a strong acid like the digestive juices of the human stomach?What happens when colloidal silver is ingested (http://www.silver-colloids.com/Papers/FAQ.html#colloidal-silver-ingested)
...And remember, colloids' large surface-to-volume ratio, a fair amount of the colloidal silver probably ends up as dissolved ions.
Excellent! =D>

Rich

2005-Feb-22, 04:56 PM

I don't get Sarongsong's objection. The NIH's rules previously left a lot of room for bias since scientists there could take consulting fees and other compensation from biomedical companies. Sounds like Zerhouni has gone a step further and told them to divest all stocks related to their research. And this is a problem in relation to the NIH statements about colloidal silver... how exactly?

If anything the previous status quo, for the Alternative Medicine folks at NIH, should have resulted in beneficial reports from them on behalf of colloidal silver. Who do you think bottles and markets most of those "alternative" medicines Sarongsong? Do you think that some poor "alternative" medicine companies are out there battling the mean old codgers running the "Evil Pharmeceutical Giants" (heretofore referred to as EPGs)? The exact EPGs that all the alternative methods proponents are constantly railing against are the same ones bottling echinea, colloidal silver, and homeopathic "medicines" for your ingestion. They get your money either way, but one way is far more profitable because not only do they not have to spend money to prove that it does anything, they don't have to spend money to actually develop it (and in the case of homeopathic medicines they usually just sell you inert solutions or tablets at a huuuuuuge mark-up), and when it does nothing for you... you might end up on their other products that actually work anyway. EPGs f0r t3h w!n!!! (Sorry couldn't resist a little online gaming referrence.)

This is one of the biggest misconceptions about the EPGs and the "valiant" alternativists. The products usually come from the same place. The only difference is that by-and-large the alternative "medicines" are far, far more profitable and lucrative for the companies selling them. There is no EPGs quest to destroy alternative "medicines". The EPGs love alternative medicines... they are their highest profit-margin products! (Although I do think the alternativists are right one on thing the EPGs do largely have the gov't in their pockets... and this is why you won't see legislation requiring any efficacy testing of alternative "medicines". The EPGs don't want that so it won't happen.)

R.A.F.

2005-Feb-22, 05:21 PM

Well, here's (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/PhonyAds/silverad.html) what Quackwatch has to say on the subject.

It doesn't look like an endorsement. :roll:

Doodler

2005-Feb-22, 06:21 PM

GOOD GRIEF!! Some couple made this stuff at home?! :o Gah... Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be better if the FDA just issued its warning with a little caveat at the bottom reading:

"The aforementioned warning for this product is the result of independent clinical trials done without bias towards the marketing interest of any corporation involved in the manufacture and distribution of these products. Those who use this product assume ALL liability and responsibility for the side effects of these products. We tried to warn you, if you don't listen, its not our problem."

Then sit back and watch these fools kill themselves. If you can't muster the common sense to listen to those who know better, doom on you.

Avatar28

2005-Feb-22, 08:03 PM

Here are a few of the more noticable pictures of argyria.

One (http://www.doh.state.fl.us/pharmacy/WebPage/News_CorrespondenceHTML/alert2.htm)

Two (http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,57119,00.html)

Three (http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijd/vol1n2/argyria.xml)

W.F. Tomba

2005-Feb-22, 08:46 PM

I would add to all this the reminder that if you buy colloidal silver as a "dietary supplement" in the United States, it might not even contain any silver, or it might have other things in it. It's unregulated.

TriangleMan

2005-Feb-22, 08:52 PM

Here are a few of the more noticable pictures of argyria.

One (http://www.doh.state.fl.us/pharmacy/WebPage/News_CorrespondenceHTML/alert2.htm)

Two (http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,57119,00.html)

Three (http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijd/vol1n2/argyria.xml)
I'm a bit suspicious about that third picture because the bluish tint is far darker than any case of argyria I've seen before. Do you know any more about it Avatar28?

Sammy

2005-Feb-22, 08:59 PM

...ingesting colloidal silver has no known benefits, but does have known risks, over and above turing blue...
Which are?

Other side effects from using colloidal silver products may include neurologic problems (such as seizures), kidney damage, stomach distress, headaches, fatigue, and skin irritation. Colloidal silver may interfere with the body's absorption of the following drugs: penacillamine, quinolones, tetracyclines, and thyroxine.

OK, you bough a few hours with that diversion, now provide evidence or fess up that you can can't support your position. I will interpret failure to respond as your admission of error.

Argos

2005-Feb-22, 09:01 PM

Why they don´t use lead? it´s cheaper and causes the same effects...

Nergal

2005-Feb-22, 09:09 PM

Why they don´t use lead? it´s cheaper and causes the same effects...
Because "eating lead" doesn't sound quite as nice as "collodial silver".

Gullible Jones

2005-Feb-22, 09:47 PM

What happens when colloidal silver is ingested (http://www.silver-colloids.com/Papers/FAQ.html#colloidal-silver-ingested)

Okay, let's see...

Upon ingestion, the ionic silver present in most colloidal silver solutions will immediately come into contact with the hydrochloric (HCl) acid that normally exists in the stomach to digest food. The chloride ion from the hydrochloric acid combines at once with the silver ion to form silver chloride, an insoluble silver compound. Since hydrochloric acid does not dissolve metallic silver, the silver particles remain unaffected by the stomach acid.

Could be... I'm not sure whether silver chloride is water soluable. I could have been wrong about that.

Some of the remaining silver particles, due to their nanometer size will pass easily through the lining of the gastro-intestinal tract and will be absorbed into the bloodstream where they will circulate and come in contact with pathogens which will be killed on contact.

That's a load of hooey. First of all, colloidal particles are larger than nanometer-scale particles - if the particles are nanometer-scale, you can't call them "colloidal". Second of all, silver ions can kill bacteria, but not metallic silver - some of the silver would have to dissolve. Third, I would not want foreign colloidal particles floating around in my blood!

The silver chloride that precipitates in the stomach consists of large molecules.

Silver chloride molecules would be fairly small as molecules go.

Silver chloride that is not absorbed into the bloodstream will be passed out of the body with solid waste. Silver chloride that does get absorbed through the lining of the GI tract into the bloodstream will be removed by the kidneys and passed out of the body in urine.

And what of the big fat colloidal particles supposedly floating around in your blood?

Sammy

2005-Feb-23, 06:00 AM

Looks like non-woo woo chemistry still predicts that you'll turn blue, and you still haven't addressed the question of any benefits from ingesting this crap.

How about responding without dancing arround and evading the issue/?Please!

sarongsong

2005-Feb-23, 04:51 PM

Looks like non-woo woo chemistry still predicts that you'll turn blue, and you still haven't addressed the question of any benefits from ingesting this crap... Crap is it? I suppose, therefore, my blue eyes are due to the silver nitrate solution that the doctor applied to them at birth to prevent conjunctivitis. And what do you suppose inhaling ultra-fine silver particles might do to my lungs?---turn them blue?

W.F. Tomba

2005-Feb-23, 05:17 PM

Looks like non-woo woo chemistry still predicts that you'll turn blue, and you still haven't addressed the question of any benefits from ingesting this crap... Crap is it? I suppose, therefore, my blue eyes are due to the silver nitrate solution that the doctor applied to them at birth to prevent conjunctivitis.
I hope you're not about to say that you know it worked because you never got conjunctivitis.

Sammy

2005-Feb-23, 05:22 PM

Looks like non-woo woo chemistry still predicts that you'll turn blue, and you still haven't addressed the question of any benefits from ingesting this crap... Crap is it? I suppose, therefore, my blue eyes are due to the silver nitrate solution that the doctor applied to them at birth to prevent conjunctivitis. And what do you suppose inhaling ultra-fine silver particles might do to my lungs?---turn them blue?

Still dancing arround the question. Topical use of silver is NOT part of the discussion, raising it at this juncture is just more of your evasive behavior.

As for inhalation, that is also not part of the issue. I don't have much expertise in inhalation toxicology, but I's bet that adding more silver to your body burden can't do much good, and probably has negative effects.

Still waiting.

sarongsong

2005-Feb-23, 05:34 PM

...I hope you're not about to say that you know it worked because you never got conjunctivitis.Who knows for sure?...and how many millions of babies received that exact same treatment? From this thread's opener:

...Silver has no known function in the body...Claims that there can be a "deficiency" of silver in the body and that such a deficiency can lead to disease are unfounded...

swansont

2005-Feb-23, 07:17 PM

I would add to all this the reminder that if you buy colloidal silver as a "dietary supplement" in the United States, it might not even contain any silver, or it might have other things in it. It's unregulated.

I don't think this is accurate - IIRC the dietary supplement industry doesn't have to clinically show that the stuff does anything, and the burden of proof of harm is different, but I think they still have to fill the bottle with whatever is named on the label. I don't think they get a free pass on false advertising.

But notice that they generally don't claim that the supplements do anything. "I took X and feel energized" is not a direct claim that X will give you more energy (or a better memory, or lose weight, or an enhanced appendage or whatever). They want you to connect the dots, and place them very close together, but stay as close to the line of false advertising as they can without stepping over.

Gillianren

2005-Feb-23, 09:25 PM

but since there's no regulatory agency to make them show the percentage of &lt;active ingredient here>, it's really hard to bust them on false advertising. according to Snopes.com, there are, in fact, dietary "supplements" that are no better than placebo, and that's based solely on amount of the alleged product in the pills.

swansont

2005-Feb-23, 10:40 PM

but since there's no regulatory agency to make them show the percentage of &lt;active ingredient here>, it's really hard to bust them on false advertising. according to Snopes.com, there are, in fact, dietary "supplements" that are no better than placebo, and that's based solely on amount of the alleged product in the pills.

I'm not sure if it's the FDA or FTC that would have jurisdiction, but there are cases of both of them acting against supplement makers for false claims. Consumer Health Digest Archive (http://www.ncahf.org/digest03/) (2003; click on links for other years). But I certainly agree that making the government chase after transgressors and not having a regulatory burden-of-proof hurdle means a lot of quackery is out there.

sarongsong

2005-Feb-23, 10:45 PM

Supplements do an $18 billion annual business in the U.S.---this has not escaped the attention of the pharm giants.

Makgraf

2005-Feb-23, 11:07 PM

Supplements do an $18 billion annual business in the U.S.---this has not escaped the attention of the pharm giants.
Didn't Rich already address this?

This is one of the biggest misconceptions about the EPGs and the "valiant" alternativists. The products usually come from the same place. The only difference is that by-and-large the alternative "medicines" are far, far more profitable and lucrative for the companies selling them. There is no EPGs quest to destroy alternative "medicines". The EPGs love alternative medicines... they are their highest profit-margin products! (Although I do think the alternativists are right one on thing the EPGs do largely have the gov't in their pockets... and this is why you won't see legislation requiring any efficacy testing of alternative "medicines". The EPGs don't want that so it won't happen.)

PS- GoogleAds, at least, have already made up their minds up which side is right:
Medical Colloidal Silver
Treat More than 650 Diseases A bottle of 50 ppm for just 9.99!

...PS- GoogleAds, at least, have already made up their minds up which side is right:
Medical Colloidal Silver
Treat More than 650 Diseases A bottle of 50 ppm for just 9.99!
And that statement will get them shut down, once the FTC finds it.
$9.99, BTW, is more than I will spend for a lifetime's use of fine silver, at $6/ounce, best exemplified in Canada's beautiful silver dollar (marked ".9999").

Sammy

2005-Feb-24, 03:53 AM

Another day gone by.

Still no Sarongsong response re documenting benefits from ingesting a toxicant.

Is it because there is no justification to be found?

sarongsong

2005-Feb-24, 06:45 AM

Toxicant?---only when overdosing or using impure product:

Toxic intake for humans is 60 milligrams, while a lethal intake is 1.3 to 6.2 grams (CRC, 1997)...
Typical Ambient Concentrations of Silver (adapted from CRC, 1997)*...
Content in Humans:
Blood:*** &lt; 2.7 µg/L
Bone:**** 1.1 mg/kg
Liver:**** &lt;5 - 32 ng/g
...The daily dietary intake by humans is estimated at 0.0014 to 0.08 mg (CRC, 1997).* When the maximum CRC intake per day (0.08 mg) is calculated over a 70-year lifetime, a total of 2.0 grams of silver are ingested per person per lifetime...
http://tinyurl.com/5ugzu
Oh, and where do you suppose all those blue users are hiding?

*

frogesque

2005-Feb-24, 02:02 PM

I see the stuff is being peddled over here (http://www.goodhealthnaturally.com/products.cfm?PID=66) This company are pushing it as a quack cure-all and an effective 'remedy' for croup

Reading the small print it apears they get round US legislation by saying it's a pre 1938 drug (http://www.goodhealth.nu/Product_Literature/silver.htm)

The Food and Drug Administration Centre for Drug Evaluation and Research (USA) has stated;

"Colloidal Silver is considered to be a pre 1938 drug. These products may continue to be marketed without submitted evidence of safety and effectiveness (required of all prescription drugs marketed after 1938) as long as they are advertised and labelled for the same use as in 1938 and as long as they are manufactured in the original manner".

Time the UK tightened up it's act and regulated these suppliers.

(I actually stumbled across it when looking up details of laryngeal tracheitis that the Pope has suffered from. )

Wally

2005-Feb-24, 02:59 PM

Huh! Never knew we had a grandfather clause strictly for snake oils! :-?

Learn something new everyday, I guess. . .

frogesque

2005-Feb-24, 03:52 PM

Yep, it shook me too Wally! So that means in essence you can bottle arsenic, mercury and lead potions without controls as long as you can prove the 'folmula' was used pre 1938.

Think that one needs looking into.

beskeptical

2005-Feb-24, 08:02 PM

I would add to all this the reminder that if you buy colloidal silver as a "dietary supplement" in the United States, it might not even contain any silver, or it might have other things in it. It's unregulated.

I don't think this is accurate - IIRC the dietary supplement industry doesn't have to clinically show that the stuff does anything, and the burden of proof of harm is different, but I think they still have to fill the bottle with whatever is named on the label. I don't think they get a free pass on false advertising.

......Think again. There would be no regulation as to how much sliver. I believe you only need enough to say it's in there, but you could say a gram when there was less than a microgram and it wouldn't be illegal. That's been one of the big complaints about dietary supplements, there is no regulation of concentration only gross weight. The rules fall into the food labeling regs. The first ingredient is the highest quantity but amount is not listed. To get around the fact the solution or whatever base the colloidal silver is in obviously has more volume than the silver thus would go higher on the ingredient list, they just separate it out and call it 'other' ingredients like you'd see on an item that listed 'inactive' ingredients. You don't have 'inactive ingredients' in food supplements since none of the ingredients are supposed to be 'active'. The marketers know full well they are using deceptive labeling and that people will make assumptions about the content of the label that may be completely erroneous. It is on purpose, you can be assured.

There really is a false sense of common sense in advertising regulations. Marketing lies are stretched to the max. and gotten away with. And even when they go beyond any semblance of truth they are not always prosecuted. And prosecutions are totally civil not criminal anyway.

Examples: Geritol ads were ordered removed from the airwaves because they claimed to give you energy. But it was after months of advertising and the marketers merely changed the wording of the ad to say it cured 'tired blood' or something similar instead of tired people. Of course our recent experience with political marketing has shown people continue to believe the original claims even after the persons making the claims admit they were wrong.

Listerine has had numerous ads removed from the airwaves for claiming to prevent disease. Same story, instead of continuing to claim it "prevents colds and flu", which past ads said, they changed it to "kills bacteria that cause bad breath". Well, guess what? That doesn't mean Listerine stops bad breath. In fact, those bacteria aren't the cause by themselves anyway. Its the activity of those bacteria if they are built up in plaque deposits on your teeth which are almost unaffected by whatever 'killing' Listerine accomplishes.

This time around, the government regulators weren't even interested in Listerine's false claims. The dental floss industry had to bring a class action suit against the company to get the ads pulled. And, once again, they just slightly changed the wording of the ads rather than correcting the false beliefs that arose from the false claims.

beskeptical

2005-Feb-24, 08:05 PM

Yep, it shook me too Wally! So that means in essence you can bottle arsenic, mercury and lead potions without controls as long as you can prove the 'folmula' was used pre 1938.

Think that one needs looking into.Well no, you can't poison people. And you couldn't put cocaine back into CocaCola. Those chemicals and other toxins would have separate regulations prohibiting them.

Here's the scoop (http://www.fda.gov/oc/history/historyoffda/section2.html) from the FDA website directly. It's more historical than specifically the current legal status. Enforcement and tolerance for mislabeling has waxed and waned over the years.

beskeptical

2005-Feb-24, 08:22 PM

This is interesting, (http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/98fr/081799a.txt) also from the FDA site.

ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing a final rule
establishing that all over-the-counter (OTC) drug products containing
colloidal silver ingredients or silver

salts for internal or external use are not generally recognized as safe
and effective and are misbranded. FDA is issuing this final rule
because many OTC drug products containing colloidal silver ingredients
or silver salts are being marketed for numerous serious disease
conditions and FDA is not aware of any substantial scientific evidence
that supports the use of OTC colloidal silver ingredients or silver
salts for these disease conditions.

DATES: This regulation is effective September 16, 1999.Apparently that 1938 exception no longer applies. Read the whole ruling it is very revealing.

Sammy

2005-Feb-24, 08:27 PM

Toxicant?---only when overdosing or using impure product:

Toxic intake for humans is 60 milligrams, while a lethal intake is 1.3 to 6.2 grams (CRC, 1997)...
Typical Ambient Concentrations of Silver (adapted from CRC, 1997)*...
Content in Humans:
Blood:*** &lt; 2.7 µg/L
Bone:**** 1.1 mg/kg
Liver:**** &lt;5 - 32 ng/g
...The daily dietary intake by humans is estimated at 0.0014 to 0.08 mg (CRC, 1997).* When the maximum CRC intake per day (0.08 mg) is calculated over a 70-year lifetime, a total of 2.0 grams of silver are ingested per person per lifetime...
http://tinyurl.com/5ugzu
Oh, and where do you suppose all those blue users are hiding?

*

Your usual crap. You are either ignorant as to what you are cutting and pasteing or willfully misinterpreting it. Those data are for inadverdant dietary intake, not for purposely dosing.

By all the known data, silver is a toxicant, and you are still thrashing arround trying to avoid admitting that there is no risk without know benefit when ingesting silver in any form.

And, tho you wouild like to ignore it, there are risks other than turning blue. Perhaps you stay out of the sun, which is a factor, or you've just been lucky so far. So we don't need to discuss turning blue anymore. You'll just have to be more creative in your delaying tactics.

beskeptical

2005-Feb-24, 08:30 PM

Your taste in TV is certainly better than your taste in links.

I don't think anyone who posts here (other than you) gives much credence to stuff sites lkike this--essentially an anymous front that is really in the business of promoting/selling the use of colloidal silver. You insinuate (without actually making any statement of your own) that NIH is compromised because of someinstances which have the appearance of conflict of interest, and then present info from a totally uncontrolled, undocumented source.

And, as is your usual tactic, you dance arround the main issue. Turning blue is a peripheral issue--the real issue is the documented (by multiple sources) is that ingesting silver has no purpose, no benefits, and real risks.

Are you going to respond to that issue, post more irrelevant links without any real statement of your position, or just fade away?While you obviously have a right to your opinion on Sarong's posts, I think reasonable exchanges have occurred after they were posted. I don't recall any rants about belief in these things coming with the exchange of ideas afterward. While Sarong may bring up some less than well supported topics she seems reasonable in discussing them.

These are the kind of posts we may want to address. We could always talk science. But to address the fallacies and false underlying premises in subjects such as these is important.

beskeptical

2005-Feb-24, 08:42 PM

First, topical and eye preps of silver compounds for antibiotic use are more concentrated than what you would ingest. So the fact the high concentrations kill bacteria is totally irrelevant to the lower concentrations' effects. Look at chlorine for heaven's sake. Because 10% chlorine is a good disinfectant, does that make table salt an antibiotic?

Second, just being a metal doesn't equate to heavy metal toxins. We do have a substantial amount of elemental and other forms of iron in our bodies.

But if the purpose of this stuff is supposed to provide some health benefit, it's obvious a substantial amount of research has failed to confirm any such claims. Why keep believing there is something there when there isn't any evidence?

frogesque

2005-Feb-24, 09:25 PM

Thanks for the links beskeptical, interesting reading. I don't think I will be taking any colloidal silver preparations [-(

tjm220

2005-Feb-24, 10:43 PM

Toxicant?---only when overdosing or using impure product:

Toxic intake for humans is 60 milligrams, while a lethal intake is 1.3 to 6.2 grams (CRC, 1997)...
Typical Ambient Concentrations of Silver (adapted from CRC, 1997)*...
Content in Humans:
Blood:*** &lt; 2.7 µg/L
Bone:**** 1.1 mg/kg
Liver:**** &lt;5 - 32 ng/g
...The daily dietary intake by humans is estimated at 0.0014 to 0.08 mg (CRC, 1997).* When the maximum CRC intake per day (0.08 mg) is calculated over a 70-year lifetime, a total of 2.0 grams of silver are ingested per person per lifetime...
http://tinyurl.com/5ugzu
Oh, and where do you suppose all those blue users are hiding?

*

At Star Trek conventions? :P

sarongsong

2005-Feb-25, 01:28 AM

Sammy, I really do appreciate your concern and trepidation about the use of colloidal silver beyond its use as a (non-human) surface disinfectant/germicide, if even that. And I understand how it might gall you that people are profiting from others' lack of knowledge and/or excess gullibility. Yes, there are shysters out there who willfully take anyone's money they can under any pretext they can dream up---we've all seen that. As for myself, I can only relate personal experience and refuse to make any claims beyond what I've experienced. I have never purchased CS and do not plan to. I make my own (~10 ppm) and do not sell it, using the purest silver and the purest distilled water available to me. Those 2 items plus electric current (AC or DC) are the only 3 ingredients. In the 6 years I've drank it, used it topically (and subdermally---using 99.97% pure DMSO to carry it through the skin layers), as an eyewash, gargled it, used it as toothpaste, and nebulized it, I have experienced no negative effects, had not one cold or flu bout, and found no interference with my daily intake of Levoxyl (thyroid levels and blood tests regularly checked by my MD). Prior to this, I would get a cold or the flu at least twice a year. I live 2 miles from the (Pacific) beach and get my fair share of sunshine with no resultant 'bluishness' whatsoever. And, in the rare (for me) event of a sunburn, spray it with CS to promote healing. Perhaps you are aware of silver's use in medical burn-units and in Silverlon products.
"But what does it do?"
[Sorry, you'll all have to work that out for yourselves, as I once did, but I can say that if this (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=19855), or anything like it manifests, CS will be my one and only line of defense.]
That's the beauty of it---you can't patent an element, and thus reap enormous financial rewards, which frustrates Big Pharm no end, and explains why medical trials and peer-reviewed papers seem to be non-existant---there's no money in it!

Sammy

2005-Feb-25, 04:48 AM

Thanks. At least you finally admit that there is no evidence supporting the use of ingested silver, something you have evaded on several threads for a long time. The reference to topical use is again irrelevant. No one argues about the well-established use of silver compounds in topical application

I diagree strongly with your rationale as to why there is no evidence supporting the ingestion of silve. If there was evidence supporting beneficial effects, there would be tons of FDA approved commercial products. The position expresed by the NIH Alternative Medicine folks in my opening post is based on scientific evidence, not divine revelation or one-person uncontrolled experiments. That said, we are dealing with opinion and there is no need to debate the issue.

You say that you have experienced no ill effects, and I'm glad, but you don't know what your current body burden is, or how rapidly it is increasing. Based on your posts, you do not seem to have much knowlege or basic information on biochemistry/toxicology. I am not saying this as any kind of put down, but to point out that you are dealing with things that you do not understand, and thus may not be aware of the risks that you are taking. I hope sincerely that you do not end up regretting your course of selt-dosing.

sarongsong

2005-Feb-25, 05:01 AM

You're very welcome.

...The position expresed by the NIH Alternative Medicine folks in my opening post is based on scientific evidence...
Well where is it? I've not heard one peep about their "... may interfere with the body's absorption of the following drugs: penacillamine, quinolones, tetracyclines, and thyroxine..." before.
Seems like a new tack for them, but not surprising considering how CS 'might' fare against some of these (thyroxine being the exception).

Sammy

2005-Feb-25, 05:42 PM

You're very welcome.

...The position expresed by the NIH Alternative Medicine folks in my opening post is based on scientific evidence...
Well where is it? I've not heard one peep about their "... may interfere with the body's absorption of the following drugs: penacillamine, quinolones, tetracyclines, and thyroxine..." before.
Seems like a new tack for them, but not surprising considering how CS 'might' fare against some of these (thyroxine being the exception).

Try reading the original link posted. All the statements have references.

Please leave out the insinuations in future posts. Stuff like "..a new tack.." implies that their is an agenda to denigrate silver. That kind of crap, especially when you just drop it like that, cheapens you and insults people posting here. We are talking about the section of the NIH sdet up specifically at the behest of people like you who (typically) distrust conventional medicine. Most of us more conventional type distrust their findings because they appear to have staff with an agenda to promote alternative treatments. That''s why I reopened a thread on silver -- I was amazed to see that even these guys saw no benefits in it's use.

pghnative

2005-Feb-25, 09:53 PM

I make my own ...using the purest silver..and had not one cold or flu bout,... Prior to this, I would get a cold or the flu at least twice a year.
Funny --- in the past few years, I haven't had one cold or flu bout either. And I haven't been taking colloidal silver.

what is my (anecdotal) data good for? Nothing
What is your (ancedotal) data good for? Also nothing.

Why don't you take your colloidal silver idea to the Gates Foundation. They sponsor a non-for-profit pharmaceutical company which performs controlled clinical trials on compounds not being pursued by "big pharma". Tell them it'll cure Avian flu.

The betting money is that you'll get nowhere...

beskeptical

2005-Feb-26, 12:00 AM

I haven't been sick for a few years either despite my son bringing several viruses into our house every year. I suspect it may be the fact I wash my hands from time to time.

Sarong, lets address two myths in your thinking, believe it or not, obviously that's up to you.

You've been doing xyz and haven't gotten sick. But you are ignoring a-w factors that also play a role in whether or not you get sick. You have arbitrarily decided it is xyz just because it seems logical and correct to you.

How do I know hand washing works. I have to see what happens to a group of people with everything as close to the same as possible. I have to randomly assign one group to hand washing and one group to not hand washing. I have to let sufficient time go by that at least some illness occurs in the groups. Then I compare the two groups. Then and only then can I say it was the hand washing that made the difference.

There are billions of people in the world. How many of those people do you think got sick once or twice for a couple years then went several years without getting sick? Millions and millions and millions. It is a fantasy to think you have some magic power that enables you to know it is the silver keeping you from getting an infection.

Second myth, there's no money in it because you can't patent it so there's no research being done.

One look at a google search for colloidal silver should prove to anyone there are billions of dollars being made on this product.

Any product with the most remote chance of becoming an antibiotic in this day and age of antibiotic resistance is going to have had billions of research dollars poured into it. We know silver is a topical antibiotic. Do you think that has missed drawing the attention of the drug researchers trying to develop antibiotics because they can't patent colloidal silver? What nonsense.

And even if it were true about the patent issue, a large amount of drug research is conducted with university money, foundation money, and tax dollars. There's a lot of griping going on because we pay for a lot of research the drug companies eventually profit from.

Here's (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&amp;db=PubMed&amp;list_uids=863250 3&amp;dopt=Abstract) one review of the available data.

To assist health care professionals in a risk versus benefit assessment of over-the-counter silver-containing products, we herein examine the following issues: historical uses, chemistry, pharmacology, clinical toxicology, case reports of adverse events in the literature, and the recent promotion of over-the-counter silver products. Other sources of silver exposure (including environmental and dietary) and EPA exposure standards are discussed. A list of currently available silver products is provided for easy reference and screening. CONCLUSIONS: We emphasize the lack of established effectiveness and potential toxicity of these products.

The FDA also looked for any supporting data when the law I mentioned above was passed. They requested any one with any supporting data to present it. The people who had to remove their claims of benefits from their product labels were motivated to find data supporting the claims. None was found.

To think with all this, the fact there is no supporting research is because no one paid to do any is just not credible by any stretch. Or that you know because of your personal experience, a sample size of one with no control population, this junk has any effect other than to waste your time and money is also not credible by any stretch.

sarongsong

2005-Feb-26, 04:54 AM

Huh! Never knew we had a grandfather clause strictly for snake oils!
Thanks, Wally:
"...Snake oil originally came from China where it had a long history of use
for inflammation and pain in rheumatoid arthritis, bursitis, etc. by
rubbing on the skin. Chinese laborers brought it to the US for treating
the pains from building the railroads and then gave it to Europeans.
US Patent medicine promoters ridiculed the claim and it has had the stigma
ever since.
But in 1989, a sample of oil from the Chinese water snake
obtained from San Francisco's Chinatown was analyzed and found to be
composed of over 20% of the omega 3 derivative, eicosapentaenoic acid
(EPA). EPAs are absorbed through the skin and are the parent of the
series 3 prostaglandins which inhibit the production of pro-inflammatory
series 2 prostaglandins. At 20% EPA, Chinese water snake oil is
therefore the richest known source of EPA!..."
FATS THAT HEAL, FATS THAT KILL, by Udo Erasmus, 1986,
1993; Alive Books, Burnaby BC, Canada ISBN 0-920470-38-6 (pbk)

Sammy

2005-Feb-26, 05:24 AM

Assuming that EPA is bioeffective and without harm, a person would be much better off getting an extract with QA as to known concentration and freedom from contaminants.

There are zillions of illustrations all over the web of "natural" products which don't contain what their unregulated sellers claim is in them, or which have dangerous contaminants (e.g., lead in calcium supplements).

That aside, I always find it interesting to see to which comments you choose to respond.

Gillianren

2005-Feb-26, 06:05 AM

. . . but who would want to oil a snake?

01101001

2005-Feb-26, 09:22 AM

. . . but who would want to oil a snake?

Me. My snake squeaks.

frogesque

2005-Feb-26, 10:33 AM

. . . but who would want to oil a snake?

Me. My snake squeaks.

Will it cure a bad case of badgers?

swansont

2005-Feb-26, 02:29 PM

. . . but who would want to oil a snake?

Me. My snake squeaks.

Will it cure a bad case of badgers?

Stinking badgers? Because we don't need no stinking badgers.

swansont

2005-Feb-26, 02:33 PM

Huh! Never knew we had a grandfather clause strictly for snake oils!
Thanks, Wally:
"...Snake oil originally came from China where it had a long history of use
for inflammation and pain in rheumatoid arthritis, bursitis, etc. by
rubbing on the skin. Chinese laborers brought it to the US for treating
the pains from building the railroads and then gave it to Europeans.
US Patent medicine promoters ridiculed the claim and it has had the stigma
ever since.
But in 1989, a sample of oil from the Chinese water snake
obtained from San Francisco's Chinatown was analyzed and found to be
composed of over 20% of the omega 3 derivative, eicosapentaenoic acid
(EPA). EPAs are absorbed through the skin and are the parent of the
series 3 prostaglandins which inhibit the production of pro-inflammatory
series 2 prostaglandins. At 20% EPA, Chinese water snake oil is
therefore the richest known source of EPA!..."
FATS THAT HEAL, FATS THAT KILL, by Udo Erasmus, 1986,
1993; Alive Books, Burnaby BC, Canada ISBN 0-920470-38-6 (pbk)

I know nothing about EPA and its purported benefits. I am just noting that a book is not a peer-reviewed source. Anyone can write and publish a book. It confers absolutely no legitimate semblance of credibility in and of itself.

beskeptical

2005-Feb-26, 08:27 PM

That aside, I always find it interesting to see to which comments you[sarongsong] choose to respond.Yes, like NOT to mine?

If a person, any person not just sarongsong, chooses not to look at contradictory information to their beliefs it's pretty obvious that leads to living in a fantasy world.

I took the time to see what research had uncovered about colloidal silver. There was none that offered any evidence of benefit from swallowing the stuff. Had I found evidence, I would have certainly considered it, not just ignored it.

I realize some people don't always know how to recognize good evidence from bad so they might take bad evidence as reliable. It seems though to often go beyond just soaking up bad evidence to additionally ignoring good evidence.

Gullible Jones

2005-Feb-26, 11:39 PM

Sarongsong: I have not had a flu in more than 4 years... Okay, sue me, I'm a kid with an uncompromized immune system, but I do go to school 5 out of 7 days a week - and public school is a great place to pick up mild (or, in the case of influenza, nasty) viral infections.

No I haven't gotten any flu vaccines... And I haven't been taking colloidal silver or ingesting significant quantities of silver in any other fashion.

I don't happen to know anyone who is infected with influenza more than once a year, either - generally less than that.

Chalk it all up to chance...

(Beskep: Wow... Thanks for your work debunking all this claptrap. :o )

sarongsong

2005-Feb-27, 01:21 AM

...I do go to school 5 out of 7 days a week...
Why? (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=424498#424498)

Sammy

2005-Feb-27, 01:55 AM

...I do go to school 5 out of 7 days a week...
Why? (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=424498#424498)

Several people have posted statements which call for response from you. IMO, you'd be better off just not posting, rather than resorting to evasive crap.

Gullible Jones

2005-Feb-27, 02:07 AM

Why? Why do you think? Because I have to. And because I have friends there. And because my classes are actually interesting. (What Mr. Gates says doesn't exactly apply to accelerated and AP classes.)

And I agree with Sammy... You're being evasive. If you don't want to answer us, you needn't post on this thread.

Edit: wait a danged minute...

Thanks, Wally:
"...Snake oil originally came from China where it had a long history of use
for inflammation and pain in rheumatoid arthritis, bursitis, etc. by
rubbing on the skin. Chinese laborers brought it to the US for treating
the pains from building the railroads and then gave it to Europeans.
US Patent medicine promoters ridiculed the claim and it has had the stigma
ever since.
But in 1989, a sample of oil from the Chinese water snake
obtained from San Francisco's Chinatown was analyzed and found to be
composed of over 20% of the omega 3 derivative, eicosapentaenoic acid
(EPA). EPAs are absorbed through the skin and are the parent of the
series 3 prostaglandins which inhibit the production of pro-inflammatory
series 2 prostaglandins. At 20% EPA, Chinese water snake oil is
therefore the richest known source of EPA!..."
FATS THAT HEAL, FATS THAT KILL, by Udo Erasmus, 1986,
1993; Alive Books, Burnaby BC, Canada ISBN 0-920470-38-6 (pbk)

Now believing the author was a seer would be too much, wouldn't it?

sarongsong

2005-Feb-27, 02:15 AM

Okay---I asked Sammy for evidence of this:
"...Other side effects from using colloidal silver products may include neurologic problems (such as seizures), kidney damage, stomach distress, headaches, fatigue, and skin irritation. Colloidal silver may interfere with the body's absorption of the following drugs: penacillamine, quinolones, tetracyclines, and thyroxine.[5]..."
He said the answer was in his referenced thread-opener. Nothing but references to argyria again, this time about Stan Jones, the political candidate who turned blue from his admitted use of his home-made CS using tap water, instead of distilled water. One dead-end after another.

Gullible Jones

2005-Feb-27, 02:17 AM

Why would using tap water make a difference? Tap water isn't known to cause argyria.... :?

Why would using tap water make a difference? Tap water isn't known to cause argyria.... :?
Right, but you are overlooking the electricity involved in CS production, causing silver compounds to form from whatever else found in the tap water. Only silver ions and particles are the desired end-product.

Gullible Jones

2005-Feb-27, 02:33 AM

As I said... There wouldn't be any contaminants in there that could cause argyria. "Dead end" to you too, sir. :roll:

sarongsong

2005-Feb-27, 02:45 AM

Are you aware of what's in your tap water?

Gullible Jones

2005-Feb-27, 03:24 AM

Yep. And no, there's nothing in there in a large enough quantity that would react with silver to produce more toxic compounds. Yes, I know about the chlorine too. Well, silver chloride is insoluable in water according to you... And you'd already get some in your stomach. So would you mind explaining why using tap water would be significantly more likely to cause argyria?

Multiple editions.

Whoops... Mea culpa. God, that must have looked stupid.

sarongsong

2005-Feb-27, 05:28 AM

...would you mind explaining why using tap water would be significantly more likely to cause argyria?...
Here (http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/m69565.html) is Stan's own explanation:
"Let me tell you what happened first, and that will probably answer most of your questions..."

Sammy

2005-Feb-27, 06:56 AM

Okay---I asked Sammy for evidence of this:
"...Other side effects from using colloidal silver products may include neurologic problems (such as seizures), kidney damage, stomach distress, headaches, fatigue, and skin irritation. Colloidal silver may interfere with the body's absorption of the following drugs: penacillamine, quinolones, tetracyclines, and thyroxine.[5]..."
He said the answer was in his referenced thread-opener. Nothing but references to argyria again, this time about Stan Jones, the political candidate who turned blue from his admitted use of his home-made CS using tap water, instead of distilled water. One dead-end after another. (emphasis added)

Do you have reading comprehension problems or selective short-term memory loss?

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ToxFAQs for Silver. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Web site. Accessed at www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts146.html on March 23, 2004.

Sarongsong, it wasn't the tap water that was the problem... He was preparing very concentrated solutions of colloidal silver. :?

Sammy

2005-Feb-28, 04:52 PM

Sarongsong, it wasn't the tap water that was the problem... He was preparing very concentrated solutions of colloidal silver. :?

Which says to me that a silver user will eventually get the "blues," unless the body's metabolic/excretion functions can keep the silver burden below some critical level. Anyone on the thread knowlegable on silver ADME? (ADME is the basic model used in toxicology--Adsorption, Distribution (through the body's systems and organs), Metabolism, and Excretion.)

sarongsong

2005-Mar-02, 01:18 AM

Sarongsong, it wasn't the tap water that was the problem... He was preparing very concentrated solutions of colloidal silver. :?
It's not colloidal silver when tap water is used, and yes, his concoction was extremely concentrated. He'd also moved to Montana from Washington for the majority of his self-treatment where the tap water (he said) was even more mineralized.

sarongsong

2005-Mar-02, 01:19 AM

Okay, I telephoned the Center for Alternative Medicine for documentation on the statement ("... Colloidal silver may interfere with the body's absorption of the following drugs: penacillamine, quinolones, tetracyclines, and thyroxine...") since its source in Footnote 5 leads to a 'Page not found' message on the Internet. The gentleman who answered explained that it was a 'Members Only' page and offered to read me the appropriate section:
"...theoretically might have reduced absorption...".
I asked whether studies had been done to determine this. He replied, "No, it is theoretical". I asked if that alone accounted for the "may" in the above referenced quote. He replied, "Yes".
[I used the word 'tack' previously because 'in theory', CS could replace all but the thyroxine, if we're talking antibiotics here.]

Sammy

2005-Mar-02, 05:28 AM

I used the word 'tack' previously because 'in theory', CS could replace all but the thyroxine, if we're talking antibiotics here.]
(emphasis added)

No, beacuse we're not talking "in theory" here. Only people, who, like you, are totally uninformed on biology/toxicology/physiology think that. No one who is informed on these topics would find any reason to think so, in theory or otherwise.

sarongsong

2005-Mar-02, 05:53 AM

Oh, I get it; your sources can talk theory, but I can't. Thanks for the clarification. 8)

Sammy

2005-Mar-02, 06:57 PM

Oh, I get it; your sources can talk theory, but I can't. Thanks for the clarification. 8)

No, the problem is that YOU don't (or won't) get it. Your sources, like you, have no basis or credibility to formulate a theory.

I really do not want to be insulting, but your position, and the "sources" that you cite simply have/has no basis in fact. Your continued refusal to accept the fact (pointed out in this thread by people with professional expertise in chemistry/physiology) that any form of silver that is ingested forms various compounds in the body and are thus capable of causing argryia, is just one example. Another is the simplistic belief is that a substance which has bacteriostatic action must have beneficial effects when ingested. I won't bother with more.

Sammy

2005-Mar-04, 06:00 PM

The silence is deafening................ [-X

sarongsong

2005-Mar-05, 12:38 AM

Oh, just musing on a few things here while attempting something of a coherent contribution (especially in light of your 13-year experience with presumeably credentialed types---a sincere salute here), all the while dodging this constant rain (3rd wettest on record), and prepping for the week-end home maintenance/get-away plans. One line of thought is how similar (but surely not the same) the CS-making process is to the (...stretch...) CF set-up; two electrodes, etc. The nanotech sizes; Ag+, Ag particles involved. Will have something together soon.

Sammy

2005-Mar-05, 04:18 AM

Ok. Hope you don't live on a hillside!

I'll wait, but I must say that it will be hard to get me to swallow (pun intended) anything related to particle size or water content--all been addressed before.

sarongsong

2005-Mar-05, 05:11 AM

Aye, that's the rub---it is a hillside and will inspect just how much dirt/mud has displaced tomorrow A.M.---too hard to tell from above.
Meanwhile, can you elaborate on your household water system a bit?

Sammy

2005-Mar-06, 04:14 AM

Aye, that's the rub---it is a hillside and will inspect just how much dirt/mud has displaced tomorrow A.M.---too hard to tell from above.
Meanwhile, can you elaborate on your household water system a bit?

Good luck on that hillside!

I have a deep well, with a water softener, which incorporates a carbon filer which includes (you'll LOVE this) silver for bacteriostatic action. I never said it didn't kill pathogens--just not to eat it! [-(

sarongsong

2005-Mar-08, 08:00 AM

...Good luck on that hillside!...Thanks---got to the bottom and it seems about 3 yards of displacement onto the fire road adjoining the property line. The commercial (plant) nursery located further below the road will bulldoze it out of the way, once things dry out more. Interesting to see the number of coyote tracks in the (now) bare clay-ey soil. I figure they came running in search of the ground squirrels who burrow there. House/foundation unaffected---this time. Neighborhood photo story (http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/02/27/news/coastal/22_30_222_26_05.txt)
I have a deep well, with a water softener...Sounds unusual for a well to be in a what-sounds-like metropolitan area---are they common there?
...which incorporates a carbon filter which includes (you'll LOVE this) silver for bacteriostatic action...Right, I was curious about the set-up, which you had mentioned briefly in the BM thread. Some of the best-tasting natural water I've encountered is in the Yosemite (National Park) Valley aquifer, at (semi-private) Fern Springs). Federal requirements call for the addition of chlorine to all public-use water there---sure plays havoc with the taste buds, tho.
I never said it didn't kill pathogensYes, as beskeptical agreed with. A serious Third World application (http://www.potpaz.org/pfpfilters.htm): "...The filter unit is saturated with colloidal silver as a germicide/disinfectant. The unit has a flow rate of approximately 1-1.75 liters of water per hour...This technology has been proven effective in eliminating coliforms, parasites, amoebae, and vibrio cholera from water..."
--just not to eat it! [-(Too late---I'm 6 years into being an independent 'experimenter' with no qualms about continued use, and monitor this 500-member group (http://silverlist.org) for the latest caveats, updates and break-throughs. Will use your aptly-named thread to pass on any peer-reviewed type papers or info, should they ever surface, that might meet your credibility standards.

Sammy

2005-Mar-08, 05:42 PM

Sarongsong wrote

Will use your aptly-named thread to pass on any peer-reviewed type papers or info, should they ever surface, that might meet your credibility standards.

Not just my standards, but those of most scientists. I suspect that it will be a long time beforwe they surface! I also hope that you don't have to become a customer for white makeup :P

Glad to hear that your home is OK for now. RE the coyotes, they seem to be amazingly clever at exploiting the environment. They are moving into urban and suburban areas here in S. MD and N. VA. Folks a bit south of me have reported several cases of pet cats being gobbled up. We try to keep our cat in after Midnight (arbitrary time, since we don't really know when the coyoyes really go to work, and some have been spotted hunting in daylight in N. VA).

beskeptical

2005-Mar-08, 05:57 PM

Yes, as beskeptical agreed with. .......in concentrations one cannot safely acheive in one's gut or bloodstream.
---I'm 6 years into being an independent 'experimenter' with no qualms about continued use, and monitor this 500-member group (http://silverlist.org) for the latest caveats, updates and break-throughs. Will use your aptly-named thread to pass on any peer-reviewed type papers or info, should they ever surface, that might meet your credibility standards.There is no established benefit to this stuff and you have chosen to be a guinea pig in a very poorly designed study, no randomization, not blinded, let alone double blinded, and no controls.

Of all the possible health practices, why on Earth would anyone choose this particular one? It just sounded good? You were in the mood the day you heard about it? Silver is so pretty? Doesn't it seem to be a rather arbitrary, not well thought out decision?

I hear you rationalizing about why it supposedly is benefiting you. That's a human trait we all do after a decision is made. So I guess it is too late for you to objectively review why you chose to begin this practice above all the other things you had probably read or heard about prior to your decision six years ago. But I do wonder if you might just consider what about colloidal silver made it stand out above other options you would have known about but did not choose to follow. In other words, if you would, don't tell me why you think this stuff works, tell me what about it differs from things you didn't choose to do.

Evan

2005-Mar-08, 06:06 PM

Why not drink tincture of iodine? It's cheaper.

sarongsong

2005-Mar-08, 07:22 PM

One explanation (not one of Sammy's favorites):
"...In colloidal form iodine, for example, is one of the elements essential to the well-being of human cells. Yet if you should drink as much as two or three grains of free iodine, it would kill you. Dr. Macy, when explaining this, held up an eight ounce cup full of colloidal iodine. "There," he said,"is the equivalent of 740 grains of free iodine - enough to kill 300 men." And he drank it. In that form iodine is not only harmless but beneficial. The same is true of arsenic and other deadly poisons..."
http://www.robeysilver.com/Readers.htm
Beskeptical, it was Robert O. Becker's "The Body Electric" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0688069711/ref=dp_item-information_0/104-8625483-9038354?%5Fencoding=UTF8&amp;n=283155&amp;s=books) and Dr. Robert C. Beck's the Beck Protocol (http://www.perutechnologies.com/beckprofile.html) and the utter simplicity of producing one's own supply that sparked my initial interest.

Evan

2005-Mar-08, 07:33 PM

So what you are saying is the bactericidal/toxic effect is somehow eliminated in colloidial form? So what then is the point?

beskeptical

2005-Mar-09, 08:08 AM

One explanation (not one of Sammy's favorites):
"...In colloidal form iodine, for example, is one of the elements essential to the well-being of human cells. Yet if you should drink as much as two or three grains of free iodine, it would kill you. Dr. Macy, when explaining this, held up an eight ounce cup full of colloidal iodine. "There," he said,"is the equivalent of 740 grains of free iodine - enough to kill 300 men." And he drank it. In that form iodine is not only harmless but beneficial. The same is true of arsenic and other deadly poisons..."
http://www.robeysilver.com/Readers.htm
Beskeptical, it was Robert O. Becker's "The Body Electric" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0688069711/ref=dp_item-information_0/104-8625483-9038354?%5Fencoding=UTF8&amp;n=283155&amp;s=books) and Dr. Robert C. Beck's the Beck Protocol (http://www.perutechnologies.com/beckprofile.html) and the utter simplicity of producing one's own supply that sparked my initial interest.From the reviews of Body E. there certainly is reason to question the book.
governments attempts to shelve all evidence.
He gets bitter in the end, having been forced to close his lab, essentially banned from research by his peers because he moved forward too far too fast plus eventually got involved in attacking the electropollution man has introduced into our environment in the last 60 years. Our universe and thus evolutionary development are based on a low level electromagnetic environment with the dominant 10 hertz frequency of both our brains and gravity waves but man has increased the electropollution by 1,000 times,with the advent of 50/60 Hz electric lines blanketing the earth and pervase pulsed microwaves to the point we are effecting the Van Allen belt and thus weather, if not the general decline of many of mans bio-functions!(Maybe the one from "colloid" is yours?)

Anyway, both of these reviews provide clues. The claim this guy's work was stopped by "the government" and the evidence "shelve(d)" is just not credible. What motive is there for the government to do such a thing, and who in the government even has this kind of mysterious power. When you read the second review above it becomes clear the real issue is the guy couldn't get anyone to fund his work. That is hardly a government conspiracy.

Then the second link to Robert C Beck, (odd coincidence of names isn't it), has a similar ring without all the 'implications to the Universe man has wrought with his unnatural behaviors'. The fact electricity has an effect on HIV in vitro IE in a test tube is nice but meaningless without further research. And once again, when this guy's ideas fail to impress anyone in his peer groups the claim of conspiracies offers an ego safety net.

There is a reason, Sarongsong, that people like this only have followers and believers among people who are not experts in the fields the hypotheses and research is actually in. It isn't because "scientists" or the "government" or the "drug companies" have launched their discrediting attack dogs and got these guys banned from all circles the closed minded scientists hang out in. It isn't because there is some big secret that if the government allowed to become public would disrupt the corporate world. Neither of these scenarios are possible. And think about it. They wrote their books. They published their research. No one in their fields was impressed.

The reason these guys have failed to convince the scientific community of their discoveries is because they could not produce convincing evidence. But from the reviews on the Body E. and the discussion on the web page on Beck, I take it both of them have managed to convince people they could pull the wool over the eyes of.

I am not trying to insult you because I do think you are looking for evidence and not magical promises, but I would bet there are huge holes in the logic and evidence of both of these guys' writings. I would bet they have presented something that sounds good and logical but only to someone who doesn't know what errors and false premises underlie the presentations.

How, do I know when I haven't read their stuff? Because I know how the system works. There are people who have good ideas but no one will fund them. The normal response is to publish what you can and continue researching whatever you can get funded. Your hypothesis can be brought up again at a more conducive time. If you have evidence or even a good idea, it will eventually be recognized even if it isn't right away.

But then there is the abnormal response to rejection of your work. The pattern of this abnormal response is distinct. The person whose work has been rejected constructs an elaborate belief system where they are the only one who sees some magical thing. If only others would listen to them. The bigger the implications of this magical thing the more likely it is to be nonsense. It is abnormal to conclude because you cannot get funding that you are being conspired against. It is abnormal to seek out people who are not knowledgeable in a scientific field to convince them of the magical thing you cannot convince your peers of.

Science loves new ideas and isn't likely to discount those that look valid. Sometimes it takes a while to get noticed. The guys that figured out bacteria were causing stomach ulcers had a terrible time getting anyone to notice their hypothesis. Since doctors had come to so firmly accept excess acid from stress was the cause of ulcers, getting doctors to change such an ingrained belief was hard to do. But eventually evidence overcomes a reluctance to change. It is now accepted widely bacteria cause 95% of all gastric ulcers and most duodenal ulcers as well.

The bacteria ulcer story is what you see when science resists change. The response of constructing an elaborate belief of imagined conspiracies against one's ideas is more typical of a borderline personality disorder. It is not likely either of these guys have anything other than magical belief to support their conclusions. IE there is no evidence here no matter how convincing they made it seem.

I'm sorry this book and the other guy's work made such an impression on you. They are likely delusional about their ideas and likely presented a slick case of supposed supporting evidence. And you were convinced. But for some reason it bears no weight in your assessment that people who know the most about what these guys are talking about are not convinced. You have chosen to accept some irrational reason these guys' ideas have been rejected by their peers. The rational reason for the rejection is the ideas were bunk.

Gullible Jones

2005-Mar-09, 06:55 PM

One explanation (not one of Sammy's favorites):
"...In colloidal form iodine, for example, is one of the elements essential to the well-being of human cells. Yet if you should drink as much as two or three grains of free iodine, it would kill you. Dr. Macy, when explaining this, held up an eight ounce cup full of colloidal iodine. "There," he said,"is the equivalent of 740 grains of free iodine - enough to kill 300 men." And he drank it. In that form iodine is not only harmless but beneficial. The same is true of arsenic and other deadly poisons..."
http://www.robeysilver.com/Readers.htm
Beskeptical, it was Robert O. Becker's "The Body Electric" and Dr. Robert C. Beck's the Beck Protocol and the utter simplicity of producing one's own supply that sparked my initial interest.

Colloidal arsenic can bloody well kill you, and iodine is reactive enough to be toxic in any form AFAIK.

And yes, I've read The Body Electric... Becker says some things that make it difficult for me to trust him very far.

beskeptical

2005-Mar-09, 07:44 PM

One explanation (not one of Sammy's favorites):
"...In colloidal form iodine, for example, is one of the elements essential to the well-being of human cells. Yet if you should drink as much as two or three grains of free iodine, it would kill you. Dr. Macy, when explaining this, held up an eight ounce cup full of colloidal iodine. "There," he said,"is the equivalent of 740 grains of free iodine - enough to kill 300 men." And he drank it. In that form iodine is not only harmless but beneficial. The same is true of arsenic and other deadly poisons..."
http://www.robeysilver.com/Readers.htm
Beskeptical, it was Robert O. Becker's "The Body Electric" and Dr. Robert C. Beck's the Beck Protocol and the utter simplicity of producing one's own supply that sparked my initial interest.

Colloidal arsenic can bloody well kill you, and iodine is reactive enough to be toxic in any form AFAIK.

And yes, I've read The Body Electric... Becker says some things that make it difficult for me to trust him very far.I hadn't even had time to look at that link.

A 1936 Reader's Digest reprint?????? #-o Gullible is correct about the iodine. It is safe and even required in one's diet in small amounts. I use it to purify water when traveling because it covers a few things chlorine doesn't. But the idea this guy drank a lethal dose that was in 'colloidal' form and therefore safe is a total fabrication. All a colloid is (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0857436.html) is a suspension of insoluble particles. Iodine is slightly soluble in water but mixing a large amount in gives you a colloid. There is absolutely nothing more special than that.

Did you pay the ~$1200 for that "colloid" maker? If so, Sarongsong you were scammed. I presume the machine takes silver metal apart into single silver molecules. It's called electrophoresis. The same technique is used to silver plate objects. I may not have the details here but I know the chemical principles.

sarongsong

2005-Mar-10, 06:48 AM

~$1200?!---No way, Jose; $15 max---three 9-volt batteries, 12" length of lampwire with 4 alligator clips attached to each of the four wire ends, one .999 silver dollar for the positive electrode (from which the silver particles and ions are stripped), and one .999 silver rod 3" long for the negative electrode, and a quart jar of distilled water. I refer to it as EIS---electrically isolated silver, about 90% ionic. The ions and nano-sized particles total up to ~10ppm; the finished product is crystal clear and the particles can be discerned (faintly) with a (keychain-type) laser beam in a darkened room. Works for me :D

pghnative

2005-Mar-10, 02:23 PM

May you rest in peace.

Sammy

2005-Mar-10, 04:49 PM

Sarong, please quit posting links to woo woo sites and sources!

And please accept the input of real experts (not me) on the chemistry of "colloidal" silver. You are putting yourself (and possibly your family) at risk -- for no known benefit.

beskeptical

2005-Mar-10, 05:35 PM

Sarong, please quit posting links to woo woo sites and sources!.........I agree with the second part of your post but I have no issue looking at woo woo sites. People need feedback as to what specifically on these sites is false and why.

Sammy

2005-Mar-11, 03:53 AM

Sarong, please quit posting links to woo woo sites and sources!.........I agree with the second part of your post but I have no issue looking at woo woo sites. People need feedback as to what specifically on these sites is false and why.

Yes, but it gets trying and frustrating when people never admit that it is a woo woo site.

beskeptical

2005-Mar-11, 08:16 AM

Sarong, please quit posting links to woo woo sites and sources!.........I agree with the second part of your post but I have no issue looking at woo woo sites. People need feedback as to what specifically on these sites is false and why.

Yes, but it gets trying and frustrating when people never admit that it is a woo woo site.That's a separate issue from bringing them up.

You have to look at the belief in bad information on a bigger time scale. Chip away, you're unlikely to see big inroads in every case. I find myself getting better and better at understanding just where the belief underlying the bad information has gone awry. I also occasionally find a better way of explaining what is the key issue in the misperceptions.

If I can't get the person to look at the problem logically, maybe there is another view that will have an effect and the person can see why what they had come to believe might not be correct.

Just explaining what evidence is and how the scientific process is the best method of testing cause and effect, etc. is not often enough to get through to folks. You can impart a lot of 'knowledge' and get nowhere. Then what have we accomplished in improving the collective mind?

I have hope for sarongsong yet. :wink:

Sammy

2005-Mar-11, 03:44 PM

Beskeptical wrote:

I have hope for sarongsong yet.

Maybe we should switch posting names! I hope that you're right, but, based on the track record of this, and numerous other threads, Saronsong has never admitted error or budged off his core positions. It's his (don't know or care about gender--using "his" as a generic ID) privelege, but the continued refusal of well-documented facts is trying.

I'm he is enjoying this exchange.

beskeptical

2005-Mar-11, 10:12 PM

Well let's just ask. Sarongsong, have you learned anything new from the folks here at the BABB? I have been under the impression you at least have looked at some of your sources a little more critically.

And, just out of curiosity are you a she or a he? I thought you were a she.

Sammy

2005-Mar-17, 02:53 AM

Well let's just ask. Sarongsong, have you learned anything new from the folks here at the BABB? I have been under the impression you at least have looked at some of your sources a little more critically.

And, just out of curiosity are you a she or a he? I thought you were a she.

Sarongsong: Any response on either question?

sarongsong

2005-Mar-18, 12:47 AM

Oh yes, I find the BABB most informative and stimulating. So much so, I went to the local library reference desk to see what they had on 'early' medicine and historical observations of silver, the advent of antibiotics, etc.
Not too much available there, so will head to the university's medical library soon. In an effort to find some common ground, a few notes from the 1983 tenth edition (I think the current edition is thirteen) of The Merck Index, monograph section 8338..."Silver, Use: ...has been used for purification of drinking water because of toxicity to bacteria and lower forms of life. Some salts used in photography.
CAUTION: Does not cause serious toxic manifestations, but prolonged absorption of silver compounds can lead to a grayish blue discoloration of skin, known as argyria or argyrosis.
Occurence in Earth's crust.....0.1/ppm
Occurrence in seawater.........0.01/ppm..."
I hope this much we can agree on. :D
While your and beskeptical's concerns have not changed my thinking on CS, you have made me aware of the need for a more acceptable presentation. CODEX, coming up for a vote between July 4-9 2005 at the 28th General Session of Codex in Rome Italy, may render all commercial supplements, including vitamins, either banned, restricted or subject to a doctor's approval, BTW.
As for gender in cyberspace, I find it often a needless distraction, so choose to avoid it.
[edited to correct CODEX date and add location]

Sammy

2005-Mar-18, 01:51 AM

In other words, though you can't defend it, you are going to continue poisoning your self without an iota of reason to think it has any benefit.

As for your comments on the Codex, you are wrong on that as you are on CS. This has become a big ticket item in woo woo circles. There is NO VOTE coming at any time. There were bills to adopt the proposed international Codex in the last Congress, but they never got out of Committee. Nothing pending in the current Congress. See Snopes.Com Urban legends site for details. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/vitamins.asp)

IMO, the supplement industry (the real Big Pharma) owns enough member of Congress to prevent this very desirable legislation from ever being adopted. Clueless types will still be able to spend their money on un-needed, un-tested, un-proven, un-quality controlled "supplements" and "herbal" preperations.

sarongsong

2005-Mar-18, 04:06 AM

There's no reason for me to defend it---it's a personal decision not imposed on nor dependent upon anyone else. BABBling with you and beskeptical over it just reinforces the concept of a clearer presentation. Poisoning myself? I don't think so; the worst your own credible references can muster up is 'turning blue'. Find me one fatality associated with silver ingestion, colloidal or otherwise. Blue, in additioon to being my favorite color, is an acceptable risk in my book, even though after 6 years, the moons of my fingernails (where it first manifests) are perfectly normal.
Snopes is dead wrong on CODEX and the U.S. Congress has no say in the matter. :D

Gillianren

2005-Mar-18, 04:13 AM

where's your evidence that Snopes is wrong? I know they have been before, though I can't now remember about what, but you're just not making a flat statement. especially since our friend the Constitution says that Congress establishes laws in this country, not anyone else.

sarongsong

2005-Mar-18, 04:36 AM

"...The WTO's Dispute Settlement Body, a new international court that does not follow US Rules of Evidence, regards Codex standards to be the basis for deciding trade disputes and they have the ability to pressure any country, including the USA to harmonize their laws under the threat of imposing cross sector sanctions against broad sectors of a nation's economy..."
http://www.iahf.citymaker.com/page/page/1794219.htm

Sammy

2005-Mar-18, 04:51 PM

There's no reason for me to defend it---it's a personal decision not imposed on nor dependent upon anyone else. BABBling with you and beskeptical over it just reinforces the concept of a clearer presentation. Poisoning myself? I don't think so; the worst your own credible references can muster up is 'turning blue'. Find me one fatality associated with silver ingestion, colloidal or otherwise. Blue, in additioon to being my favorite color, is an acceptable risk in my book, even though after 6 years, the moons of my fingernails (where it first manifests) are perfectly normal.
Snopes is dead wrong on CODEX and the U.S. Congress has no say in the matter. :D

There is a burden to defend when you post declarative staements on a board like this . To not defend it and to refuse to admit possible is just plain trollish behavior.

Snopes is NOT wrong re the Codex. It looks like you slept thru 6th civics as well as general science. The Congress, with oversight by the Supreme Court re Constitutionality, makes the laws for the U.S. NO FOREIGN BODY CAN AFFECT DIRECTLY/DICTATE U.S. LAW. Your later post RE the WTO relates ONLY to international trade, NOT DOMESTIC markets and products. Companies selling regulated products to other countries MAY have to comply with the Codex.

The crap re the Codex affecting U.S. vitamin/supplement sales all originated with an urban legend email, passed arround by the supplement crank population. Maybe this will be the one case where, after dancing arround and posting all sorts of irrelevant and woo woo links, you'll actually admit that you were wrong about something.

beskeptical

2005-Mar-19, 09:38 AM

There's no reason for me to defend it---it's a personal decision not imposed on nor dependent upon anyone else. BABBling with you and beskeptical over it just reinforces the concept of a clearer presentation. Poisoning myself? I don't think so; the worst your own credible references can muster up is 'turning blue'. Find me one fatality associated with silver ingestion, colloidal or otherwise. Blue, in additioon to being my favorite color, is an acceptable risk in my book, even though after 6 years, the moons of my fingernails (where it first manifests) are perfectly normal.
Snopes is dead wrong on CODEX and the U.S. Congress has no say in the matter. :DThe known risks may be small, but the benefits appear to be zero.

As to the use of silver colloids for antiseptics and disinfectants, that is not the same as antibiotic or anti-infective efficacy, so your supporting evidence is based on a fallacy. I used chlorine as an example. Chlorine is a strong disinfectant but in no way acts as an antibiotic or anti-infective in the body.

Not being able to articulate the benefit of CS should also suggest to you the alternative reason: there is no benefit.

You did show an incorrect understanding of the chemistry of what is a colloid.

I have no issue with your decision to drink the stuff, but I would hope when you can't explain the benefit of something you at least consider the fact there is no benefit. You may now know more and that 'more' should at least make you reconsider past conclusions. I learn stuff all the time. I don't hold to some past belief in spite of new information. That makes no sense.

Sammy

2005-Mar-19, 06:11 PM

While waiting for Sarongsong's reply on the Codex issue, I had another thought on the CS issue.

Sarong, you point out that you been ingesting homemade CS for 6 years, with no sign of argryia. Please consider this: do you have any idea as to the actual concentration of silver that you are ingesting? I'm not refering to a "cookbook" estimate based on the instructions that you are following, but to an actual assay.

I suggest strongly that you take a sample of your homebrew to a certified lab (not one selling any "supplements" or homeopathic products) an get an assay. I'm willing to bet that you getting much less silver than you suspect, and hence the lack of argryia. Willing to give it a try, and report the result?

sarongsong

2005-Mar-21, 09:23 AM

...do you have any idea as to the actual concentration of silver that you are ingesting?...[from] an actual assay...An actual essay, no; I understand it's quite expensive (~$150-$250) due to the sophistificated equipment needed to detect ionic content, while particle content is relatively easy.
...I suggest strongly that you take a sample of your homebrew to a certified lab (not one selling any "supplements" or homeopathic products) an get an assay. I'm willing to bet that you getting much less silver than you suspect, and hence the lack of argryia...While you may be correct re ppm of silver ingested, in the absence of a conclusive assay, I attribute the avoidance of argyria to the form of the ingested silver---ionic and nano-size particles---easily eliminated via the kidneys and feces after travelling through the body.
Willing to give it a try, and report the result?Sure, if it can be accomplished relatively inexpensively---any recommended assayers? I've got a fresh batch and could send off a sample immediately.
[Within the CS community, it is generally agreed the method I use (low voltage direct current---LVDC) results in 10ppm-20ppm range, 80% to 90% ionic...3 tablespoons of which meet the EPA's limit for silver in drinking water.]
Any accumulated silver in the body, I've been told, can be ascertained through hair analysis, but may yield 'iffy' results, depending on methods used and interpretations of data---not sure how 'disciplined' this (hair analysis) field is. It's definitely used by casinos here to detect use of illicit drugs by their prospective employees, tho.
Okay, the CODEX situation. From your snopes link:
...United States law governs trade within the United States. Codex standards come into play only when American manufacturers of dietary supplements look to vend them on the international market, and even then only when the other nations involved have incorporated Codex guidelines into their food laws....Yes, however, from a major supplemental provider (http://www.nowfoods.com/?action=itemdetail&amp;item_id=44090&amp;F=1):
...It is extremely unlikely that the WTO could impose Codex dietary supplement guidelines on the U.S. because of the statutory provisions inherent in DSHEA and the Food and Drug Administration's Modernization Act (FDAMA).* It is possible that another member of the Codex body could bring a dispute to the WTO against the U.S. WTO would have to rule in their favor and then it would require an act of Congress before any changes could occur.* A more imminent threat exists from some of our own members of congress who would like to see DSHEA rescinded...Annual supplement sales are around $18 billion, KaiserHealth reports U.S. pharmacists totalled $165 billion sales of prescription drugs in 2003. This suggests to me how Congress would vote in such a situation.

Sammy

2005-Mar-21, 09:10 PM

I hardly consider a supplement supplier to a good source of info on this topic. But, it is consistent with what I said, consistent with what Snopes said, and consistent with you being wrong in your post. There is NO threat on the near or far horizion of restrictions on accessability to supplements. Which, IMO, is a shame--but lets save that for another time.

As long as we are on the subject of you being wrong, you are YET AGAIN wrog re the ionic form of CS when ingested. I don't care what you think is in your homebrew. It doesn't matter. Numerous folks have told you repeatedly that once the stuff hits your stomach, it forms various salts instantly--the sort of salts which are responsible for argyria. So again, you have tried to defend your position, and again, the facts just don't support you.

I can't recommend labs,and am not knowlegeble on costs, but I suggest contacting your local or state health department for references to labs. Unless it is really outrageously expensive, I think you owe it to yourself and your family to see what you are actually ingesting. The estimate from the CS community (obviously carries little weight unless they can cite assay results to back that estimate up.

beskeptical

2005-Mar-22, 08:36 PM

....Annual supplement sales are around $18 billion, KaiserHealth reports U.S. pharmacists totalled $165 billion sales of prescription drugs in 2003. This suggests to me how Congress would vote in such a situation.I am not aware the "pharmaceutical companies" have lobbied Congress to keep supplement manufacturers from competing with them. The issue with the FDA is pretty straightforward, provide evidence of your medical benefit claim or don't claim it on the label of your products. For an $18 billion dollar industry, I somehow doubt they can't afford the research. Seems more probable the reason the companies can't provide the research documenting the benefits of the products is the stuff doesn't work as claimed.

Why are you not suspicious of the claims of an $18 billion dollar/yr. industry? Are those companies somehow more altruistic and less profit motivated than a $165 billion dollar/yr. industry?

pghnative

2005-Mar-22, 10:14 PM

... For an $18 billion dollar industry, I somehow doubt they can't afford the research. Seems more probable the reason the companies can't provide the research documenting the benefits of the products is the stuff doesn't work as claimed.In fairness, the reason why supplement companies don't do the research is because they cannot patent the compounds. So once they "proved" something worked, the company next door could make the same compound and use the same sales pitch. The company next door would win in the long run due to lower overhead costs. (As I'm sure you're aware, quality clinical trials ain't cheap.)

beskeptical

2005-Mar-22, 11:14 PM

... For an $18 billion dollar industry, I somehow doubt they can't afford the research. Seems more probable the reason the companies can't provide the research documenting the benefits of the products is the stuff doesn't work as claimed.In fairness, the reason why supplement companies don't do the research is because they cannot patent the compounds. So once they "proved" something worked, the company next door could make the same compound and use the same sales pitch. The company next door would win in the long run due to lower overhead costs. (As I'm sure you're aware, quality clinical trials ain't cheap.)In fairness, that is a tired claim. There are plenty of other sources for research funding besides corporate funding. Foundations, universities including naturopathic universities, and private producers of patentable compounds of these things are potential sources.

And, there is quite a bit of research testing claims that fail to support the claims. You can find a lot of research on the Net. Pick a supplement and see what you find.

Sammy

2005-Mar-23, 02:11 AM

beskeptical wrote

And, there is quite a bit of research testing claims that fail to support the claims. You can find a lot of research on the Net. Pick a supplement and see what you find.

He already did -- silver! [-X

pghnative

2005-Mar-23, 07:07 PM

... For an $18 billion dollar industry, I somehow doubt they can't afford the research. Seems more probable the reason the companies can't provide the research documenting the benefits of the products is the stuff doesn't work as claimed.In fairness, the reason why supplement companies don't do the research is because they cannot patent the compounds. So once they "proved" something worked, the company next door could make the same compound and use the same sales pitch. The company next door would win in the long run due to lower overhead costs. (As I'm sure you're aware, quality clinical trials ain't cheap.)In fairness, that is a tired claim.
That's not a tired claim. It is a statement of fact --- if colloidal silver was patentable, it would have had a multi-million dollar clinical trial scheduled yesterday. (well, assuming it first passed the safety tests, which isn't a given)

But there is another aspect to this that I think we can agree on -- because it is legal to sell many of these "therapies" (so long as the advertising is creative enough) without clinical data, the sellers don't really care whether it works or not. So they have no reason to pursue grants, investigate current findings, etc. A few probably honestly think they are doing the public good, but some (most?) probably know that they are selling placebos.

beskeptical

2005-Mar-23, 07:23 PM

That's not a tired claim. It is a statement of fact --- if colloidal silver was patentable, it would have had a multi-million dollar clinical trial scheduled yesterday. (well, assuming it first passed the safety tests, which isn't a given)I guess you've chosen to ignore my post and persist in your incomplete picture of reality.
But there is another aspect to this that I think we can agree on -- because it is legal to sell many of these "therapies" (so long as the advertising is creative enough) without clinical data, the sellers don't really care whether it works or not. So they have no reason to pursue grants, investigate current findings, etc. A few probably honestly think they are doing the public good, but some (most?) probably know that they are selling placebos.There is no reason to pursue research as long as people like yourself, (I assume you use some unproven supplements), buy the stuff despite the evidence against the benefits and/or lack of evidence for benefits.

There are also lots of patented products with false and/or misleading claims as well that are sold to folks without evidence of the benefits, (examples are Listerine and Lysol products). These companies also do not provide research because they don't need to. The patent certainly isn't the key.

pghnative

2005-Mar-23, 10:48 PM

That's not a tired claim. It is a statement of fact --- if colloidal silver was patentable, it would have had a multi-million dollar clinical trial scheduled yesterday. (well, assuming it first passed the safety tests, which isn't a given)I guess you've chosen to ignore my post and persist in your incomplete picture of reality.

Considering that the rest of my post was in agreement with you, I find it bizarre that you've made that statement.

Which part of my sentence above do you disagree with. Do you think that if colloidal silver was patentable, that the patentee wouldn't bother to do studies on it???

But there is another aspect to this that I think we can agree on -- because it is legal to sell many of these "therapies" (so long as the advertising is creative enough) without clinical data, the sellers don't really care whether it works or not. So they have no reason to pursue grants, investigate current findings, etc. A few probably honestly think they are doing the public good, but some (most?) probably know that they are selling placebos.There is no reason to pursue research as long as people like yourself, (I assume you use some unproven supplements), buy the stuff despite the evidence against the benefits and/or lack of evidence for benefits.
Ummm --- perhaps I've lost the ability to write, or you've lost the ability to read, but your conclusion from my statement (which accuses some (most?) sellers as being unethical) befuddles me.

edited to correct misspelling and to add that I do agree that as long as people buy it, the sellers have no driver to prove it works.

Sammy

2005-Mar-24, 03:03 AM

Not to gloss over any disagreements or misunderstandings re the above posts, I just want to comment that, IMO, most, if not all, of the supplement sellers ARE unethical (as are the purveyors of Lysol, Listerine, diet pills, et al).

These guys are selling things which, to a large extent, science has proven are either not needed and/or ineffective. That is unethical, and exploits the neurotic and the uneducated.

beskeptical

2005-Mar-25, 12:35 AM

Let me re-address your post and perhaps we can resolve the differences in how we are perceiving each other's posts.
That's not a tired claim. You say it isn't a tired claim that alternative medicine research funding is limited because the substances are not patentable.

The supposed lack of research on alternative medicine is often cited as due to corporate politics (or however you want to label it). This is then given as the reason these supplements or alternatives do not have supporting evidence for their effectiveness. But this is a tired claim because there is lots of research on these products. And, there are other sources of research funding besides corporations that expect to profit from the patent of a substance.
It is a statement of fact --- if colloidal silver was patentable, it would have had a multi-million dollar clinical trial scheduled yesterday. (well, assuming it first passed the safety tests, which isn't a given)The claim colloidal silver research would be funded if it were patentable is not "a fact". There is no evidence suggesting it would be worthwhile pursuing. Companies have to have an inkling a product will work before they are going to invest any money, let alone millions. They aren't going to just investigate products because a bunch of folks use them. There is no theoretical basis for colloidal silver to work, no reliable anecdotal evidence it works, and there is a fair amount of evidence it doesn't work and may not be safe. Patent or not, it is not a product anyone is interested in researching for good reasons, not because it isn't patentable.

I can guarantee you, if there were any chance of antibiotic effects of colloidal silver, which is the claim Sarongsong is making as her reason to take the stuff, there would be enormous funding available from the NIH for one, but other organizations as well such as AIDS research funding sources.

The following site lists source after source of information on these products. All of these sources are not offering opinion. They are offering research sources and results. They include funding sources as well.

http://www.medicalcomputingtoday.com/0nvam.html

But there is another aspect to this that I think we can agree on -- because it is legal to sell many of these "therapies" (so long as the advertising is creative enough) without clinical data, the sellers don't really care whether it works or not. So they have no reason to pursue grants, investigate current findings, etc. A few probably honestly think they are doing the public good, but some (most?) probably know that they are selling placebos.Since you made the typical claim of no patent no research that users of these products claim I stated that I assumed you used the products. I was perhaps hasty to have made that assumption. You would be correct in that we do agree on the ethics issues. I don't think any of these companies would do much research unless they had to. Research and development, along with capital improvements are two of the biggest places corporations invest their funds. But I would pose that as much money goes into marketing research as into product research.

pghnative

2005-Mar-25, 01:33 PM

I think we're seeing eye-to-eye now. :D

I still think the patent issue is more important than you do, but I completely agree that a company would need some sort of proof of concept before even bothering with safety trials let alone clinical trials. So in the specific case of CS, I was probably off-base in saying that "clinical trials would have been started yesterday"

sarongsong

2005-Mar-25, 03:11 PM

Oh, there is such a company---American Biotech Labs (http://www.cliftonmining.com/ablsum.htm), who seems to be taking advice suggested here.

beskeptical

2005-Mar-25, 06:11 PM

I think we're seeing eye-to-eye now. :D

I still think the patent issue is more important than you do, but I completely agree that a company would need some sort of proof of concept before even bothering with safety trials let alone clinical trials. So in the specific case of CS, I was probably off-base in saying that "clinical trials would have been started yesterday"In the past, it wasn't so much patents, as it was the lack of recognition by mainstream medicine of alternative medicine that inhibited research efforts. That has changed quite a bit and you see more and more AM research published in the regular medical literature.

As far as patents go, a very large proportion of medicines begin with natural substances that have some indication of effectiveness. From there, research begins to isolate the active substances and test their effectiveness. If a certain 'natural' product is used for a particular ailment, drug companies might very well be interested in exploring the product for it's active chemicals. The idea natural medicines could not be patented is contrary to the reality of drug company research.

The loss of rain forest habitat concerns many researchers because the loss of species of plants that might have potential for cancer cures or antibiotics. Coral reefs are great places to discover 'natural' substances that have antibiotic properties since the life forms have 'warring' edges where they either take or lose territory with their neighbors. Everything from a drug company was not concocted in a lab.

I am sorry if I mis-judged you, BTW. :D

Sammy

2005-Mar-25, 06:52 PM

Oh, there is such a company---American Biotech Labs (http://www.cliftonmining.com/ablsum.htm), who seems to be taking advice suggested here.

The usual **. These guys make all the usual supplement scammer claims, but no real back up. They were reuked in 2002 by the FDA for making unsubstantiated claims re efficacy of the product. (http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/Apr02/041702/97s-0163_let0582_vol17.pdf) They show up on all the woo woo supplement sites with claims about the bacteriastatic effects of CS -- all based on in vitro tests which are meaningless.

When their claimed "foreign tests" show up in a peer-reviewed journal, I'll take them seriously. Meanwhile, you STILL haven't responded meaningfully to the questions posed to you. We're still waiting...

Sammy

2005-Apr-01, 05:52 PM

Are you going to respond on this, sarongsong? Been a while. Hope you're not out on sick leave :lol:

sarongsong

2005-Apr-07, 09:05 PM

Sorry, Sammy, computer went down almost 2 weeks ago and just got it back yesterday. Picked up a TDS Testr (low), sold in hydrophonics stores (US$70), and it shows my CS is coming in at between 10-20 ppm, confirming my earlier estimates.

Sammy

2005-Apr-07, 11:27 PM

Sorry, Sammy, computer went down almost 2 weeks ago and just got it back yesterday. Picked up a TDS Testr (low), sold in hydrophonics stores (US$70), and it shows my CS is coming in at between 10-20 ppm, confirming my earlier estimates.

Good news and bad news!

Good news: Welcome back, and glad it was nothing worse. I had the same problem 6 weeks ago--hard drive crashed. Had to get a new HD, re-install WinXP and ALL my programs.

Bad news: I still think you're gonna turn blue, and that you are exposing yourself to risk woth no evidence of benefit.

Sarong, it would be helpful to link to something more specific than a title page with all sorts of unrelated junk on it.

Here is the cached article (http://wwws.house.gov/search97cgi/s97_cgi/view.jsp?k2dockey=http%3A%2F%2Fwwwc.house.gov%2Fin ternational_relations%2F109%2Fmoe042605.pdf%40comm s&amp;QueryText=silver&amp;MimeType=application/pdf&amp;docURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwwwc.house.gov%2Finternati onal_relations%2F109%2Fmoe042605.pdf) I believe you meant to refer us to.

All this is, is some company's statement they want in the Congressional record or in this case, this committee's record I guess. It is otherwise meaningless. You can put your kid's grade school homework in the Congressional record by writing a letter.

Find us the link to the supposed malaria research. One must see how the study was done to verify its validity. This letter is not evidence. Just because you say your patients got better does not mean your product was the reason. Malaria by its nature gets worse and better in an individual without any treatment.

PatKelley

2005-May-17, 03:56 PM

First, Collodial silver, any type of silver and argyria: regarding an earlier comment on breathing silver and blue lungs: - argyria used to only show up in silver miners, which is part of the reason the interest in current diagnoses focuses on supplementation; these elderly people are not mining silver. The silver miners did aspirate the trace silver amounts, and it eventually ended up causing neurological damage in some. Neurological damage in this case, by the way, includes such things as tremors, weakness and dementia. Any silver that reacts with acid, regardless of its original form, becomes a salt which is easily separated into ions in an ionic solution (water, stomach acid, blood, etc...) and therefore there is no barrier to individual silver ions flowing all through the body and combining with tissues. "Colloidial" is a fancy way of saying "sexified" and making it more marketable.

Second, check your gums. It shows up there first as a graying of the tissue.

Third, the only "cure" for this condition is laughably hilarious, in my book: some folks are taking Selenium, which if you know your high school chemistry was used to "redden" window glass to reduce the greening effect, and as the additive in old traffic light glass tints. The solution to being blue? Color yourself red.

frogesque

2005-May-17, 03:58 PM

Yeah, I'd already read that beskeptical, that was my point.

The guy is just defending his own business interest. I may have missed it but I didn't see any references to blind studies, peer review, duplication of results or overall long term effects. Plenty of rhetoric and handwaving alluding to studies but no solid back up references. To me he's just a snakeoil peddler with no medical credibility - but what do I know? I'm only the gardener.

sarongsong:

As has been pointed out before in this thread, you are free to swallow the stuff if you want but you have been informed of the dangers many times so, if at some future date kids point you out in the street and shout "Smurf!", you can't complain.

Still #-o

sarongsong

2005-May-17, 04:02 PM

Sarong, it would be helpful to link to something more specific than a title page with all sorts of unrelated junk on it...
What is so difficult about finding the article? I gave the page, date and name so it could be seen in context. The thread title is "statements", not "evidence". I gave the way to find the company's field study reports in Bad Medicine.

beskeptical

2005-May-17, 04:25 PM

What is so difficult about finding the article? I gave the page, date and name so it could be seen in context. The thread title is "statements", not "evidence". I gave the way to find the company's field study reports in Bad Medicine.Well for one it wasn't as obvious as you think.

It wasn't easy to see Moeller's name among the many on the page and when I did find the right agenda item I clicked on the subject rather than the guy's name as anyone would normally do and all I got was a hearing notice. I had to go to the home page and search for 'silver' to find the article.

I understand the context was important. So perhaps link to both next time or tell us to, "click on the guy's name" as I found out afterward. That isn't what most people would have automatically done.

All that aside, how about tracking down the malaria research. I don't have time nor confidence it is there. One has to link to the Professor Fox's page and/or hunt or try to find the appendices that are discussed but not in the article and I see a wasted goose chase there. Anyone who obscures their supporting research in such a rambling document should immediately arouse one's suspicion.

Sammy

2005-May-17, 05:02 PM

Everything in that article smacks of classic quackery. Anecdotal reports, too busy to do proper testing/evaluation--that's just like all the perpetual motion machine inventors who "...know it works, but don't have the resources to test it fully."

But more important is the fact that we're dealing with malaria. Malaria is a disease which, because of the life cyle of the parasite causing it, can appear to be "cured," even without treatment, and then re-aapear. Even with conventional treatment, the disease can re-appear days/weeks/months/years after apparent "cure."

With malaria, you develop a high fever, which comes and goes every other day or few days. How often a fever returns varies with each species of malaria.

As the infection progresses, the fevers get less severe and you seem to recover. But the infection can hang on in many people for several years, particularly for those with a long history of exposure to malaria.

These people can develop some immunity and may be infected for many years while only rarely having symptoms.
(above quotes from http://www.emedicinehealth.com/articles/13140-3.asp, many other sites have the same information).

I also want to reinforce the comment RE the Congressional Record. Appearing in the Record means othing. That statement could have been inserted by request, or read to a Committee "meeting" composed on one Member, one staffer, the author, and no audience.

NoXion

2005-May-17, 05:41 PM

Colloidal silver? Sorry to appear uninformed but what is this? From what I've heard it appears to be a dietary supplement of some sort.

I'm afraid my knowledge of chemistry could be written on a pinhead, so you'll forgive me if I ask what the problem is? Isn't silver like gold in that it reacts with hardly anything? So introducing it into body wouldn't do too much damage, or give any benefits, surely?

frogesque

2005-May-17, 06:17 PM

Colloidal silver? Sorry to appear uninformed but what is this? From what I've heard it appears to be a dietary supplement of some sort.

I'm afraid my knowledge of chemistry could be written on a pinhead, so you'll forgive me if I ask what the problem is? Isn't silver like gold in that it reacts with hardly anything? So introducing it into body wouldn't do too much damage, or give any benefits, surely?

It's a murky world.

My understanding is that silver ions have antiseptic qualities and the thinking goes that if I drink water containing silver ions I will be protected from bacteria, viruses and a variety of dieses caused thereby. Unfortunately there is no unequivable proof that this is so and a side effect of 'colloidal silver'(CS) is that silver ions are circulated throughout the body, reacting with tissue as it does so and turning back into metallic silver. This causes irreversible organ pigmentation (a blueish hue) that has analogies with developing a B&amp;W photograph. Silver is not an essential element for the human body (unlike iron or calcium etc.) and there are studies that link excessive tissue deposits to various illnesses including dementia.

CS has become part of the health suplement market and is heavily marketed (just Google!) with vast markup margins made on what is essentially bottled water with a trace element. Being marketed as a suplement rather than a medicine there are few controls regarding dosage and/or purity.

In fact CS is a misnomer, a coloid is a finely divided particle (in this case silver) permanantly held in suspension within a fluid (water) Silver ions on the other hand are held in solution but will, on exposure to light or other chemicals, revert to the metalic form.

I am open to correction on the above - I'm not a chemist nor medical practioner but personally I wouldn't touch the stuff.

Sammy

2005-May-17, 06:40 PM

Frogesque wrote

My understanding is that silver ions have antiseptic qualities and the thinking goes that if I drink water containing silver ions I will be protected from bacteria, viruses and a variety of dieses caused thereby. Unfortunately there is no unequivable proof that this is so.... (emphasis added)

I would make just one minor edit to the above. In my opinion, there is NO proof of efficacy or benefit.

Silver ions do have a proven bacteriostatic effect. Silver compounds have long been used for topical (external) application for skin infections. But that does not mean that it is safe or effective for internal use. Clorox bleach is also good for killing many bacteria, but no one advises drinking it!

sarongsong

2005-May-18, 12:58 AM

Malaria Treatment (http://www.cliftonmining.com/ablsum.htm)
"...Of special interest are the three completed human studies from Africa, in which the product was used as an oral intake treatment against Malaria.* In the studies, at a dosage of just two teaspoons used three times daily, 100% of the test patients were able to obtain full recovery from Malaria in an average of just five days, with the shortest cases taking three-and-a-half days and the longest cases taking only 10 days.* Testing after treatment showed that the Malaria protozoa were no longer present in the blood.* Additional human study Malaria tests are currently underway.* The new test results should be available in the next 60-90 days. Copies of the three completed Malaria test summaries are available upon request.
*
Cost Of Malaria Treatment
*
According to the GSA pricing schedule of the Silver Biotics product and the data in from the three human test Malaria studies, the Silver Biotics supplement could treat an average Malaria patient to full recovery for approximately $6.00 in total cost.."

Sammy

2005-May-18, 03:13 AM

Sarongsong, you have have often taken the position that you can't trust what the government says. Why do you trust these guys?

There is one glaring weakness not dealt with in the summary posted in your link. What evidence do we have that the patients were cured? As I noted in my previous post, people can be asymtomatic but still cary the disease. The comment that blood tests did not show parasites is not convincing evidence of a "cure,", lacking backup info as to the type of malarial organisms involved:

People with P vivax or P ovale may relapse several months after the initial illness because of the persistence of dormant forms (called hypnozoites) remaining in the liver. These should be eradicated with medical treatment. http://www.emedicinehealth.com/articles/13140-3.asp

Unless the article specifically addresses the type of organism involved, and/or information about possible dormant organisms, it's shoddy work and not to be taken seriously.

I'll accept this when these studies show up on PubMed. 'Till then, it's still self promotion by snake-oil producers.

Aks

sarongsong

2005-May-18, 03:59 AM

...Why do you trust these guys?...Oh, it's not so much trusting them (tho I'd use their product in a pinch---not having my home-made available for some reason), as watching their progress in gaining CS credibility. They've got the bucks, the silver and the will, it seems, to actually play the business game, patents included. I consider them a work in progress. Maybe beskeptical has more on the workings of malaria; I'm certainly no expert, either. Afterthought; I don't recall them using the word 'cure' itself, as opposed to their 'full recovery' claim.

beskeptical

2005-May-18, 05:42 AM

...Why do you trust these guys?...Oh, it's not so much trusting them (tho I'd use their product in a pinch---not having my home-made available for some reason), as watching their progress in gaining CS credibility. They've got the bucks, the silver and the will, it seems, to actually play the business game, patents included. I consider them a work in progress. Maybe beskeptical has more on the workings of malaria; I'm certainly no expert, either. Afterthought; I don't recall them using the word 'cure' itself, as opposed to their 'full recovery' claim.I certainly have more to say on their adoption of the usual and not so ethical marketing tricks.

This data is intended for military, humanitarian, and government use only.Give me a break. This is an obvious marketing gimmick statement.

There have been no reported contra indications with its continued use.So the blue/gray skin isn't worth noting.

Copies of the three completed Malaria test summaries are available upon request.Why? Because they haven't been published anywhere? No peer review? This is just **. As a reader of scientific journals of all kinds and on many subjects I can say with confidence this is nonsense. Have you called them for copies yet, Sarongsong? Ask them where the studies have been published and or even reviewed by anyone.

eliminating the bacteria from the raw water at dilutions of both 1/300 and 1/600 in different time frames. Unlike chlorinated or iodine treated water, water made potable, using ASAP products, has no unnatural smell or taste. A full report on using the product for water purification is available on request.Same thing...why not link to the published studies? What does 1/300 or 1/600 even mean? PPMs? This section is particularly deceitful in my opinion. 1/300 dilution is totally meaningless unless the numbers are accompanied by labels. 300 what? 1 what? Where is the data stating such concentrations are safe to drink? How much could you drink?

...while remaining completely non-toxic to humans at the level at which it is being used. American Biotech Labs’ management found that numerous doctors and humanitarian groups etc. were using the product as an inexpensive alternative for the disinfection of wounds, for general wound care, and wound washing. External use. No news here.

AGX SILGEL™ looks to be the only product (that we have found) for disinfectant use inside a surgical wound.They have found??? Like that matters. Inside a surgical wound? If I debride a surface wound it becomes a surgical wound. If I operate on your intestine and rinse the abdominal cavity with antibiotics I presume they work safely and as effectively as this stuff so their claim is pretty dubious.

FDA approved by the end of the first quarter of 2005. The product will be used for moist wound-care management including health care professional use for:

* Surgical wounds

* First and second degree burns

* Lacerations

* Skin tears

* Abrasions

* Grafted wounds

* Donor sites

* Debrided wounds

* Leg ulcers

* Pressure ulcers

* Diabetic foot ulcers

* Decubitus ulcers

* Venous stasis ulcersAll uses that silvadene cream is currently approved for. Nothing new here. This claim and much of the rest all refer to topical applications, not ingested colloidal silver.

In FDA approval comparison studies, AGX SILGEL™ was found to be over 10 times more effective at killing the MRSA bacteria (at a challenge of 10,000,000 bacteria per ml) than a leading FDA approved product, even though the leading product contains over 312 times more of the active ingredient (silver) than the AGX SILGEL™ product. More meaningless stuff. Active ingredient volumes or weights are not indicators of comparable information. It's like the stupid Aleve commercial claiming to be better because you take two pills instead of 8. Who cares? Actually, one must be careful when prescribing due to different effective doses of various meds. In one pill 10mgs might be the dose while in another it might be 100mgs. What really matters is the safety margin. If a therapeutic level is a long way from the toxic level that is better than a drug with a narrow margin of safety. Other comparisons of volume are meaningless.

This paper is typical marketing deceit. I am very distrustful of marketers, corporations and government, in that order. There are so many red flags here it colors the whole room. If they were only selling some topical disinfectant, this would just be your average marketing blather. But trying to bleed their topical product over into the anti-malaria malaria claims of their oral product and implying the water purifying products are safe is really shameless deceit in the name of profits. There are no safety studies here so they would prefer to sell their ingestible products no matter who is harmed.

captain swoop

2005-May-18, 10:09 AM

My Uncle has Malaria, he got it back in the 1950s when serving in Malaya as part of his National Service, he can be OK for years and then has an attack.

LTC8K6

2005-May-18, 12:08 PM

Curad now sells silver anitbacterial bandages.

http://pics.drugstore.com/prodimg/87108/200.jpg

Sarongsarong, you might want to shoot over to James Randi's JREF website. You may have a legitimate claim to win one million dollars if you can prove a claim or two about the benefits of ingesting CS. I suggest that you apply, and see if they will agree to test the claims about CS.

www.randi.org

beskeptical

2005-May-18, 05:58 PM

My Uncle has Malaria, he got it back in the 1950s when serving in Malaya as part of his National Service, he can be OK for years and then has an attack.That doesn't make sense. While past malaria excludes you as a blood donor, 3 years disease free means you are disease free. I had to investigate this after a health care worker needlestick used on a guy who had had malaria. Was the CDC wrong? I'd like to know because it's always possible.

pghnative

2005-May-18, 06:33 PM

There have been no reported contra indications with its continued use.So the blue/gray skin isn't worth noting.
The term "contra indications" doesn't refer to side effects perse, but rather to negative interactions with other medicines. All the patients could die from silver induced organ failure and the company could still correctly claim no reported contra indications.

01101001

2005-May-18, 06:41 PM

The term "contra indications" doesn't refer to side effects perse, but rather to negative interactions with other medicines.
Really? You sure?

WebMD (http://my.webmd.com/content/article/45/1660_51087.htm)

Contraindication: a reason not to use a course of treatment or medication.
Cornelaw (http://www.cornealaw.com/glossary.htm)

Contraindication is something that gives indication against the advisability of a particular remedy or treatment
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraindication)

In medicine, a contraindication is a condition or factor that increases the risk involved in using a particular drug, carrying out a medical procedure or engaging in a particular activity.
No "interactions" in sight.

Gullible Jones

2005-May-18, 08:13 PM

LTC8K6: Remember, that's external application... Silver is known to be antiseptic, and is used for that purpose. Of course, that doesn't mean it should be used internally...

PatKelley

2005-May-18, 08:24 PM

LTC8K6: Remember, that's external application... Silver is known to be antiseptic, and is used for that purpose. Of course, that doesn't mean it should be used internally...

Yeah, there's a lot of stuff I would use topically that I would never put in my mouth... (Witchhazel for one, in Tucks and other haemmeroid medications -- FWOOSH!)

beskeptical

2005-May-19, 03:57 AM

There have been no reported contra indications with its continued use.So the blue/gray skin isn't worth noting.
The term "contra indications" doesn't refer to side effects per se, but rather to negative interactions with other medicines. All the patients could die from silver induced organ failure and the company could still correctly claim no reported contra indications.Yes and no as was posted above. You are correct in that it doesn't mean risk of side effects. But it doesn't refer to only medication interactions, it refers to any patient characteristic that would caution one not to prescribe the med or treatment. So allergy would be a contraindication for example. But if everyone who took the med had the reaction, it would be contraindicated for everyone.

pghnative

2005-May-19, 11:54 AM

Thanks for the corrections --- I've heard the term used a lot, but only in the context of drug-drug interactions

Maksutov

2005-May-19, 12:12 PM

To heck with colloidal silver, the REAL secret is iron pellets! (http://home.nc.rr.com/tuco/looney/acme/ironpellets.html) The demonstrated effects of this natural elemental substance on experimental coyotes and roadrunners is well documented. Plus this incredible atomic substance is available to all at reasonable prices!

Then again, perhaps the underlying reason behind sarongsong's ingestion of colloidal silver is a wish to be worth more dead than alive... :o

Metricyard

2005-May-19, 12:43 PM

To heck with colloidal silver, the REAL secret is iron pellets! (http://home.nc.rr.com/tuco/looney/acme/ironpellets.html) The demonstrated effects of this natural elemental substance on experimental coyotes and roadrunners is well documented. Plus this incredible atomic substance is available to all at reasonable prices!

Then again, perhaps the underlying reason behind sarongsong's ingestion of colloidal silver is a wish to be worth more dead than alive... :o

I say bring back the peach pits. What ever happened to those? Maybe it's time to re-introduce them back to the market? I see alot :o $$$$$$ :o to be made. Better still, Silver peach pits. No, Silver Peachpits with a copper center. The Tootsie pop of medicine.

sarongsong

2005-May-19, 06:39 PM

...Have you called them for copies yet, Sarongsong?...Of course. 8)

sarongsong

2005-May-19, 06:43 PM

...Then again, perhaps the underlying reason behind sarongsong's ingestion of colloidal silver is a wish to be worth more dead than alive... :oAlmost right; a wish to be more alive than dead [-(

Gillianren

2005-May-19, 07:15 PM

of course they don't say they "cure" malaria. if they did, the FDA would then have the right to get involved. the word "cure" is strictly regulated, you know.

sarongsong

2005-May-20, 02:07 AM

Agreed; supplements are not in the same category as medicines re the FDA. Can't help recalling the old saw "Vitamin C cures scurvy", tho.
Some interesting behind-the-scenes observations/opinions on Clifton/ABL from 2004:
http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/m68389.html

beskeptical

2005-May-20, 06:32 AM

Agreed; supplements are not in the same category as medicines re the FDA. Can't help recalling the old saw "Vitamin C cures scurvy", tho.
Some interesting behind-the-scenes observations/opinions on Clifton/ABL from 2004:
http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/m68389.htmlSarongsong, what you are essentially saying is a deficiency in vitamin C is cured by taking in vitamin C. Iodized salt cures goiter too. So what? There is a distinct difference. Are you saying we all have a silver deficiency?

frogesque

2005-May-20, 07:59 AM

Sufficient intake of vitam C (whether by supplement or natural sources such as fruit etc.) prevent scurvy because humans cannot maufacture the vitamin. Without vitamin C intake scurvey would be the normal, miserable and probably fatal human condition. In cases of scurvey, taking vitamin C will fairly quickly return the body to health but it will not reverse any long term damage such as joint problems, poor bone structure or tooth loss. Infants are particularly vulnerable.

There is no evidence to back up claims that massive doses (~1000mg/day) of vitamin C is a cure all and that it will offer any protection against colds and other virus diseases as some of the health food suppement peddlers would like us to believe.

Ingestion of colloidal silver (CS) has no beneficial effects for us whatsoever.

sarongsong

2005-May-20, 08:01 AM

So what?...Are you saying we all have a silver deficiency?That wasn't my intent; the scurvy phrase is just an indelible memory from grammar school; that sailors came down with it until citrus fruits were found to prevent it. IIRC, scurvy was described as a disease to us back then, rather than a deficiency.

frogesque

2005-May-20, 08:11 AM

It's a disease caused by a deficiency :wink: There are others such as rickets (calcium) and goitre that has been mentioned by beskeptical

Silver is merely a pollutant that the body has to deal with as best it can, putting unnecessary strain upon the body's organs.

sarongsong

2005-May-20, 08:19 AM

Depends on concentration and form.

beskeptical

2005-May-20, 08:24 AM

So what?...Are you saying we all have a silver deficiency?That wasn't my intent; the scurvy phrase is just an indelible memory from grammar school; that sailors came down with it until citrus fruits were found to prevent it. IIRC, scurvy was described as a disease to us back then, rather than a deficiency."Described to us"??? Surely you are not 300 years old? :wink:

If you had a teacher who used the term 'disease' it was just that teacher's inaccurate description because it was known as a deficiency for at least the last 75 years.
scurvy (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/s1/scurvy.asp)
In 1747 the Scottish naval surgeon James Lind treated scurvy-ridden sailors with lemons and oranges and obtained dramatic cures.

So you are essentially saying you think your silver supplements do something that isn't recognized by science yet. But the science is there and it refutes your claim. As far as the scurvy, science has advanced enormously since the 1700s and even since the 1950s so I don't think the comparison is very valid.

captain swoop

2005-May-20, 09:19 AM

Depends on concentration and form.

But it doesn't, that's just the claim of the supplement scammers.

LTC8K6

2005-May-20, 12:28 PM

Sarongsarong strongly believes in and defends this CS guff.

There is little point in attempting to use facts to counter a strongly held and defended belief.

Reality will eventually end Sarongsarong's belief when CS fails him.

PatKelley

2005-May-20, 12:58 PM

Depends on concentration and form.

Check your gums. Pink or gray?

Sammy

2005-May-20, 04:04 PM

Sarongsong, many, many people, who have in-depth knowledge of chemistry have stated that the form of silver solution is irrelevant; once it is ingested, it forms silver salts by combining with other substances found in the stomach. For anything else to happen, the silver would have to be chemically inert; if that were the case (which is impossible), it would have no biological activity.

Other than the unsubstantiated statements of the cranks/scammers selling this stuff, can you cite any evidence that CS does not follow the established "laws" of chemistry?

sarongsong

2005-Jun-29, 04:42 AM

While waiting for Sarongsong's reply on the Codex issue...CAFTA is currently before Congress; Senate Finance Committee (VOTES TOMORROW- WEDNESDAY), House Ways &amp; Means Committee (VOTES THURSDAY). Votes on Floor of House &amp; Senate could be delayed til after July 4 recess. Should it pass, along with the FTAA, then the U.S. will be bound by the CODEX ALIMENTARIUS (http://www.codexalimentarius.net/) re vitamins and supplement regulation, under the WTO.
"A New Documentary —WE BECOME SILENT (http://www.welltv.com/WBS-Video.html)
Exposes the Dangers of Free Trade and Codex
Narrated by Dame Judi Dench..."
About 10 minutes long (look for Mel Gibson and his 'Vittamin C').

Maksutov

2005-Jun-29, 04:48 AM

I didn't miss BABBling all that much, even though there were a few threads in the forum that were interesting. This wasn't one of them.

Floyd_the_astronomer

2005-Jun-29, 06:43 AM

Can we not put colloidal silver to the test? Double blinds and petri dishes anyone? I don't recommend resurrecting silver nitrate.

Sammy

2005-Jun-29, 04:32 PM

There is only a tenuous connection between CAFTA and the Codex--a comment on harmonizing food safety with international recommendations.

The Codex has already been rejected by the Congress. The right for the uneducated to waste their money on un-needed, un-effective, un-quality assured supplements will not be abridged.

By the way, what medical school did Dame Dench attend? IMO. she knows as much about this issue as Tom Cruise knows about psychiatry.

And, while I'm here--to Floyd the Astronomer: no need to test CS in Petri dishes, double blind or any other way. It's well proven that CS kills bacteria in vitro and in topica; applications. It's equally well proven that it has no benefits and considerable risk when ingested.

sarongsong

2005-Jun-29, 09:47 PM

There is only a tenuous connection between CAFTA and the Codex--a comment on harmonizing food safety with international recommendations...Not a comment; a requirement (Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Measures)---which language is also in the WTO Agreement and the (proposed) FTAA; let's see how it plays out:
June 29, 2006 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-5107143,00.html)
"...The Senate Finance Committee, which approved the [CAFTA (http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/CAFTA/CAFTA-DR_Final_Texts/Section_Index.html)] agreement by a voice vote Wednesday, sent it to the full Senate for consideration this week or after the Independence Day recess..."

pghnative

2005-Jun-29, 10:49 PM

There is only a tenuous connection between CAFTA and the Codex--a comment on harmonizing food safety with international recommendations...Not a comment; a requirement (Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Measures)---which language is also in the WTO Agreement and the (proposed) FTAA; let's see how it plays out:
June 29, 2006 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-5107143,00.html)
"...The Senate Finance Committee, which approved the [CAFTA (http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/CAFTA/CAFTA-DR_Final_Texts/Section_Index.html)] agreement by a voice vote Wednesday, sent it to the full Senate for consideration this week or after the Independence Day recess..."Please note that Sarongsong's link does not support her claim that CAFTA would require harmonization with Codex. It is about labor issues. I find that odd.

Sammy

2005-Jun-30, 12:36 AM

There is only a tenuous connection between CAFTA and the Codex--a comment on harmonizing food safety with international recommendations...Not a comment; a requirement (Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Measures)---which language is also in the WTO Agreement and the (proposed) FTAA; let's see how it plays out:
June 29, 2006 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-5107143,00.html)
"...The Senate Finance Committee, which approved the [CAFTA (http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/CAFTA/CAFTA-DR_Final_Texts/Section_Index.html)] agreement by a voice vote Wednesday, sent it to the full Senate for consideration this week or after the Independence Day recess..."

Sarongsong, even if your woo woo nightmares come to pass, NOTHING in the Codex agreement affects ANYTHING sold/used in the United States. It ONLY affects comodities sold in international trade. The cranks driving the hysteria over hte Codex either don't understand this, or purposely choose to mislead.

I quote again from the Urban Legends site:

The e-mailed exhortation to rise up against Codex claims that commission's guidelines regarding dietary supplements "will over ride U.S. law." That's just plain wrong. United States law governs trade within the United States. Codex standards come into play only when American manufacturers of dietary supplements look to vend them on the international market, and even then only when the other nations involved have incorporated Codex guidelines into their food laws.

Claims that in various European countries vitamins are now selling for a horrendous amount or are available only by prescription are strawmen, because the U.S. (as does every other nation) makes its own laws, and the new laws it is proposing in S. 722 and H.R. 3377 specifically and deliberately omit mention of vitamins or minerals, both of which are already adequately regulated. http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/vitamins.asp

sarongsong

2005-Jul-14, 03:34 AM

Wed 07.13 (http://www.coasttocoastam.com/)
"Dr. Robin Falkov, Dr. Terry Grossman and journalist Jon Rappoport join together to discuss the implications of pending legislation that may regulate the distribution of over the counter dietary supplements... The sale of vitamins and supplements is currently under fire in Europe, where health food manufacturers and retailers recently lost a challenge at the EU Court of Justice..."

Sammy

2005-Jul-14, 05:13 AM

Wed 07.13 (http://www.coasttocoastam.com/)
"Dr. Robin Falkov, Dr. Terry Grossman and journalist Jon Rappoport join together to discuss the implications of pending legislation that may regulate the distribution of over the counter dietary supplements... The sale of vitamins and supplements is currently under fire in Europe, where health food manufacturers and retailers recently lost a challenge at the EU Court of Justice..."

Up to your old tricks citing woo woo sources like they were rational. This stiuff is from Coast-to-Coast, the Bat Cave of the cranks. Those 3 guys have zero credibility on anything, IMO.

That aside, what does a possible decision (about which we know nothing of the facts in the case) in an EU Court hjave to do with anything here?

sarongsong

2005-Jul-14, 05:38 AM

Well, I haven't heard the program yet---"Bat Cave of the cranks"---good one, Sammy :P ---except for the BA, tho, right?

Sammy

2005-Jul-14, 04:16 PM

Well, I haven't heard the program yet---"Bat Cave of the cranks"---good one, Sammy :P ---except for the BA, tho, right?

It was OK. His Utility Belt had devices that protected him.........

beskeptical

2005-Jul-14, 06:42 PM

"Health and freedom rights" in danger? Depends on how you view the right for folks to deceive, make false claims, and sell mislabeled products.

Just because the person selling a product has a buyer who is convinced the product does something does not relieve that seller of all obligation to fairly represent that product.

Evidence is producible if it's there. I think we have debunked your drug company monopoly on research dollars, though you may still not accept that. Alternative folks are out there making just as much dishonest money as the next marketer. There is no invisible wall that keeps unethical marketers out of the colloidal silver business.

publiusr

2005-Jul-14, 07:42 PM

If someone reads their astology column--that's one thing. But Bad Medicine kills.

sarongsong

2005-Sep-20, 12:15 AM

Maybe something we can agree on:
September 18, 2005
"...The low-tech filter, a mix of clay and sawdust, is fired in a kiln at 1600 degrees and treated with a small amount of colloidal silver. It fits into a five-gallon plastic bucket and produces about two gallons of potable water per day. Miraculously, it also eliminates 99.88 percent of the water-borne diseases that Wukich says kill about 11,000 children a day around the world -- all for as little as $10 per unit..."
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_374925.html)

Sammy

2005-Sep-20, 05:12 AM

Silver has a long and recognized history as a bacteriacidal agent for in-vitro use. I don't know how effective it might be in this particular application, because pollutants in the water may react with the silver form less biologically effective silver salts -- as they do when silver is ingested.

captain swoop

2005-Sep-20, 07:41 AM

Plus Ceramic filters and activated charcoal will remove just about everything anyway

sarongsong

2005-Oct-17, 06:06 AM

Not exactly CS; but hot on the trail:
October 14, 2005 (http://www.physorg.com/news7264.html)
"In the first-ever study of metal nanoparticles' interaction with HIV-1, silver nanoparticles of sizes 1-10nm attached to HIV-1 and prevented the virus from bonding to host cells. The study, published in the Journal of Nanotechnology, was a joint project between the University of Texas, Austin and Mexico Univeristy, Nuevo Leon..."

beskeptical

2005-Oct-17, 07:02 AM

Not exactly CS; but hot on the trail:
October 14, 2005 (http://www.physorg.com/news7264.html)
"In the first-ever study of metal nanoparticles' interaction with HIV-1, silver nanoparticles of sizes 1-10nm attached to HIV-1 and prevented the virus from bonding to host cells. The study, published in the Journal of Nanotechnology, was a joint project between the University of Texas, Austin and Mexico Univeristy, Nuevo Leon..."Sarongsong, do you think you could take the time to find the original articles instead of stuff like this. I found the "Journal of Nanotechnology" but find no article in it that correlates with this citation. I'd love to comment and am interested but find searching for the complete information very time consuming.

This link says absolutely nothing about ingesting CS. It seems to be a completely different application. We already know topical silver is a potent antibiotic. That doesn't mean ingesting it does anything for you other than turning you grayish blue.

sarongsong

2005-Oct-17, 07:53 AM

http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/3/1/6

Sammy

2005-Oct-17, 03:33 PM

Quite interesting in-vitro work.

I do hope that you understand that the materials used in the referenced work bear no relationship to the crap that you ingest. Coated nanoparticles are not an example of "colloidal" silver.

beskeptical

2005-Oct-17, 10:08 PM

As Sammy already pointed out:
from the citation:
For this reason we tested silver nanoparticles with three markedly different surface chemistries: .....

You really still have no research that colloidal silver is significant in reducing disease if ingested on a regular basis. In this case you have an altered form binding with a single agent, HIV. That means the studied form inhibited HIV in a test tube. That is a long way from preventing or treating HIV in a person let alone preventing or treating other infections. For the test materials to bind to HIV, they have to be interacting with a specific site on the HIV virus that wouldn't necessarily be on other organisms.

It is interesting line of inquiry for anti-infectives, but certainly not supporting evidence that colloidal silver is beneficial if ingested.

It is important to point out that scientific research needs to be properly interpreted. It is a poor practice to find your outcome, then try to fit the data into it. I call that magical thinking. I magically think drinking colloidal silver will make me immune to infection. But there is still no evidence to base that on. Only magical thinking.

sarongsong

2005-Oct-18, 07:21 AM

Relax, already---I said it wasn't CS; my point being that scientists are actually working with the dread element silver on a nano-scale for (internal?) medical purposes:
Abstract
The interaction of nanoparticles with biomolecules and microorganisms is an expanding field of research. Within this field, an area that has been largely unexplored is the interaction of metal nanoparticles with viruses...Cool photos, too---boy, is that HIV virus (http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/3/1/6/figure/F3) ugly!

Sammy

2005-Oct-18, 03:12 PM

Relax, already---I said it wasn't CS; my point being that scientists are actually working with the dread element silver on a nano-scale for (internal?) medical purposes:Cool photos, too---boy, is that HIV virus (http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/3/1/6/figure/F3) ugly!

I (nor have other responders on this issue) have never disputed the fact that silver is a known bacteriacide. It is also a known poison. But, a classic tenet of toxicology is that the poison is in the dose. Nanotechnology may offer a way to use such substances (of which there are many) without harming the human host. The significant element of the cited research is the use of nanotech to deliver a therapeutic agent, not the fact that silver was used.

I agree with you, but do we have any side effects after eating lead, like over consumption of colloidal silver can cause argyria.? Is there any such kind of problem?

Jens

2010-Sep-01, 06:43 AM

I agree with you, but do we have any side effects after eating lead, like over consumption of colloidal silver can cause argyria.? Is there any such kind of problem?

You may not get an answer, because you responded to a thread that has been on life-support for six years. As a simple answer, though, yes, there are certainly (bad) side effects from eating lead.

Gillianren

2010-Sep-01, 04:58 PM

I've probably mentioned it before, probably on this very thread, but my ren faire boss must be tested for heavy metal poisoning on a regular basis. He's also pretty adamant that the pewter, which he mixes himself, has no lead in it. This is because the effects of lead poisoning are well known. At least I thought they were.

Doodler

2010-Sep-02, 08:46 PM

I agree with you, but do we have any side effects after eating lead, like over consumption of colloidal silver can cause argyria.? Is there any such kind of problem?

Google "lead paint poisoning"....

Would I be shot for revealing my first thought on seeing this thread on page one was "Who the smurf smurfed this smurfing thread?"?